Track recent network slashing events and filter by severity or time window to identify validator penalties and network risks.
Monitor recent slashing events on the network
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hours | No | Look back period in hours | |
| severity | No | Filter by severity |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only query or a live subscription, whether it requires auth, what the return shape looks like, or how 'recent' relates to the hours parameter. For a monitoring-named tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 efficient sentence with no waste, though it is perhaps too terse given the absence of behavioral context.
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?
No output schema, no annotations, and a description that omits critical context: whether this is a live monitor (like its start_* siblings) or a historical query, and what fields the events contain. The name 'monitor' actively creates ambiguity that the description does not resolve.
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 are already documented in the schema ('Look back period in hours', 'Filter by severity'). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but full coverage justifies a baseline 3.
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+resource ('Monitor slashing events') which is clear enough, but 'recent' is vague and the description doesn't distinguish this from validator-related siblings like get_validator_risks or compare_validators. An agent could reasonably confuse it with other monitoring tools in the set.
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 alternatives like get_validator_risks (which also concerns slashing risk) or the start_*_monitoring tools. The word 'monitor' also implies ongoing streaming, but no clarification is given about whether this is a one-shot query or a subscription.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.