magicblock getIdentity

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

Annotations already convey safety (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds useful context: the cost ($0.01) and that it returns data for the 'current' node, which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two short sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds the cost. No filler or redundant information.

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 read-only tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned (identity and FQDN) and the cost. It lacks explanation of 'ER Validator' but that is domain knowledge.

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 coverage is 100% with a single optional endpoint parameter (enum, described in schema). The description does not elaborate on the parameter, so it adds no value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves the identity and FQDN of the current ER Validator node, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling magicblock tools by focusing on validator identity rather than balances or account info.

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 usage for getting validator identity but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like magicblock_getAccountInfo or other getters. No exclusions or comparisons to siblings are provided.

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