get_top_cosigner_success_rate

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

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. Only states it 'gets' data (implied read-only) but lacks detail on side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or return format. Minimal disclosure beyond basic functionality.

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?

Two sentences, no extraneous words. First sentence states purpose, second gives defaults. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

No output schema, so description should hint at response structure (e.g., fields like validator, success rate). It does not. Also lacks explanation of 'cosigner success rate' metric. Simple tool but left incomplete for agent to infer output.

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 parameter descriptions including defaults. The description reinforces defaults ('last hour', 'top 5') but adds no new meaning 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?

Clearly states verb 'Gets', resource 'top N validators with highest cosigner success rate', and scope 'within a time frame'. It differentiates from siblings like 'get_cosigner_success_rate' (single validator) and 'get_top_proposer_success_rate' (proposers).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_cosigner_success_rate'). Defaults are mentioned but no conditions for when not to use this tool. Usage is implied but not explicitly framed.

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