get_validator_commission

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any permissions, rate limits, or side effects.

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 sentence with no wasted words, achieving brevity. However, it lacks structure or additional clarifying elements that would enhance scannability.

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 simplicity of the tool (one required parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description should at least hint at the return value (e.g., a numeric commission rate). It omits any context about what the agent can expect to receive.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no detail about the single parameter 'validator_address', such as format or expected value. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description should compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('commission') along with the subject ('validator'), clearly defining the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_validator_outstanding_rewards' and 'get_validator_slashes' by targeting a different data attribute.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without comparative direction.

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