get_validator_earnings_breakdown

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

With no annotations, the description must carry transparency. It discloses default time range behavior and the nature of the breakdown, but does not mention data freshness, error handling, or authorization requirements. Some transparency exists but gaps remain.

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 two sentences. The first sentence conveys the core purpose, and the second adds a useful default behavior note. 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and default behavior but does not hint at the return format or structure, which is relevant since no output schema exists. This leaves some uncertainty.

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 clear parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only restating the time default. 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 provides a detailed earnings breakdown for a validator, specifying it separates rewards from block proposals and cosignatures. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on success rates or stakes.

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 default time range behavior but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like success rate tools. Usage guidance is implied but not directly provided.

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