get-validators

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get all validators' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the validators data takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 maximally concise at just three words. Every word earns its place: 'Get' specifies the action, 'all' indicates scope, and 'validators' identifies the resource. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration in this minimal but complete phrase.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'validators' means in this blockchain context, what data is returned, whether results are paginated, or any error conditions. Given the complexity implied by the sibling tools (delegation, contracts, DEX operations), this simple description leaves too much unspecified.

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?

The description mentions no parameters, which is appropriate since the single parameter 'networkName' is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage). The schema provides comprehensive details about the networkName requirement and even includes usage guidance about checking available networks first. The description correctly avoids duplicating this information.

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 'Get all validators' states the verb ('Get') and resource ('validators'), making the basic purpose clear. However, it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-delegations' or 'get-account-info' that also retrieve blockchain data. The description lacks specificity about what 'all' means in this context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get-delegations' and 'get-account-info' that also retrieve blockchain information, there's no indication of when this specific validator-focused tool is appropriate versus other data retrieval tools. The input schema mentions checking networks first, but this isn't part of the description itself.

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