Fetches Sui mainnet status and staking metrics in one call, including epoch, checkpoint, gas price, SUI price, total stake, and validator APY and commission.
Sui Network and Staking — Sui mainnet in one call: epoch, latest checkpoint, reference gas price, SUI price, total stake and every active validator with staking APY, commission and stake, sorted by APY. Cost: $0.002 USDC per call. Latency p99: 2000ms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it discloses genuinely useful operational traits: cost ($0.002 USDC per call) and latency (p99 2000ms), plus a complete inventory of what comes back. It does not state auth requirements or that the operation is read-only, but the cost/latency disclosure is well beyond what most definitions offer.
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?
Front-loaded: the subject is named first, the payload list follows, and pricing/latency are compressed into two short trailing sentences. The field enumeration is long but each item carries real information, so little is wasted.
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 exists, so the description must define the return surface itself — and it does, listing every returned field including the validator sort order (by APY). With zero params and no annotations, there is nothing an agent needs before calling that is left unsaid.
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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case — there is nothing to misinterpret. The enumerated fields describe output rather than inputs, so they add no parameter semantics but also create no ambiguity.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Sui Network and Staking — Sui mainnet in one call') and enumerates exactly the payload: epoch, latest checkpoint, reference gas price, SUI price, total stake, and all active validators with APY/commission/stake. An agent immediately knows this is a network-state snapshot rather than an address/tx lookup.
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 phrase 'in one call' implies this is the aggregate snapshot to reach for when you want network-wide state, but the description never names alternatives (sui_watch, sui_tx, sui_address, iota_network) or states when NOT to use it. Usage is inferable from the returned field list rather than explicitly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.