get_top_proposer_success_rate

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

No annotations are provided. The description adds behavioral context by specifying default values (last hour, top 5) and implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. Given the absence of annotations, the description provides minimal behavioral transparency beyond defaults.

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 a single, concise sentence (14 words) that front-loads the core action and purpose. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, no output schema, and sibling context, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the main parameters and defaults. However, it could briefly mention the output format (e.g., list of validators with success rates) for full clarity, but this is a minor gap.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description's mention of defaults ('last hour', 'top 5') adds minimal value beyond the schema's default specifications. The parameter semantics are adequately handled by the schema, and the description does not significantly enhance understanding.

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 action ('gets'), the specific resource ('top N validators with the highest proposer success rate'), and the optional time frame. It succinctly conveys the tool's purpose and naturally distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_proposer_success_rate' (single validator) and 'get_top_cosigner_success_rate' (cosigner focus).

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 mentions defaults (last hour, top 5) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_top_cosigner_success_rate' or 'get_validator_info'. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, which is moderate for a tool with many siblings.

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