validator_set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that tokens are raw base-unit strings and rank is by integer power, which are helpful behavioral details. It does not explicitly state read-only or side-effect-free nature, but the wording implies a query. It adds value beyond the name.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose ('Current active validator set') and appends necessary clarifications in parentheses. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify the return structure. It mentions voting power and token format, but does not specify whether the result is a list or object, or include fields like validator address or moniker. For a simple tool with no params, it's adequate but could be slightly more explicit about the output 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is no need for parameter explanation. The description appropriately avoids redundant parameter discussion.

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 clearly states the resource (validator set) and the operation (returns current active set with voting power). It also specifies data format details (raw base-unit strings, integer power rank), which distinguishes it from generic list tools. No ambiguity.

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?

The description implies when to use it (to fetch validator set info) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since it's a simple read-only query with no parameters, the usage is self-evident, but the lack of explicit routing to siblings like 'proposals' or 'balance' leaves some inference to the agent.

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