Retrieve detailed performance metrics for a Chiliz validator over a chosen period, defaulting to 30 days, to evaluate uptime, rewards, and staking reliability.
Get detailed performance metrics for a validator
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Period in days | |
| validatorAddress | Yes | Validator address |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing behavioral: not whether it is a read-only call, what metrics are returned, how a bad validatorAddress is handled, or whether results are cached. 'Detailed performance metrics' is left entirely undefined.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding or wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter read tool the description is minimally adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema it should at least indicate what 'performance metrics' comprises (uptime, missed blocks, APR) so an agent knows the response shape.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (validatorAddress and days with default 30) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about the time window or address format, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: retrieving performance metrics for a validator. It is distinguishable from siblings like compare_validators and get_validator_risks, though it never names them explicitly to draw the boundary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus compare_validators (multi-validator) or get_validator_risks (risk-focused). The agent must infer the distinction from the tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.