get_cosigner_success_rate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses default time range and the metric's importance, but does not reveal the return format, side effects, or permissions.

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 three concise sentences, each serving a purpose: definition, context, and defaults. No unnecessary words.

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 query tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, importance, and defaults. It lacks explicit return format, but the metric name implies a percentage, which is sufficient. Sibling context is handled by naming.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description restates default behavior for startTime/endTime (already in schema) and adds no new parameter-level detail beyond the schema descriptions.

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 measures a validator's cosigning performance, explains that cosigning is the most frequent duty, and links success rate to uptime and rewards. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_proposer_success_rate.

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 explains default behavior when startTime and endTime are omitted, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus siblings like get_proposer_success_rate or get_top_cosigner_success_rate.

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