get_proposer_success_rate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses critical behavioral traits: defaults to last hour if times not provided, implications of missed proposals (delay, lost rewards), and the metric's importance as an indicator of node stability and latency. It does not mention any destructive aspects or required permissions, but none are expected for a read-only metric tool.

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 concise with six sentences, each adding meaningful information. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately provides context on implications 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 metric tool, the description is largely complete, covering purpose, implications, defaults, and parameter usage. However, it lacks explicit mention of the return format (e.g., percentage or ratio) and whether it is read-only, which would be helpful given no output schema or annotations.

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 the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the default behavior for startTime and endTime ('defaults to last hour') and clarifying the validator parameter scope. This goes beyond the schema's dry 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 proposer success rate, using specific verbs like 'measures' and specifying the resource as 'validator's performance when proposing a new block'. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_cosigner_success_rate by focusing on proposing rather than cosigning.

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 assessing validator node stability and network latency, and it provides default behavior for time parameters. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it (e.g., for cosigner performance).

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