get_validators

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the read surface (validator set, stake, status). However, it says nothing about size of the result, pagination, or any permission requirements, which for a potentially large set is a gap. Adequate but not rich.

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 no filler; every word carries information. It is terse to the point of omitting useful context, but nothing is wasted.

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 simple zero-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the default scope. Safety and parameter details are low-risk here; only pagination/size behavior is unaddressed.

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% – epoch_id and its 'omit for current' semantics are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or behavioral detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current validator set') and enumerates the payload (stake amounts, status), so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, but the resource is unique among them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus siblings such as get_staking_info or get_protocol_config, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The word 'current' implies a default scope but the alternative (historical epochs) is only inferable from the schema.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.