cosmos_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. It implies a read-only query but does not explain the default chain, the meaning of 'active' (bonded), the status parameter's options, pagination, or output structure. The description is not misleading but is significantly under-informative.

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 fluff, immediately stating the core action. It is appropriately front-loaded and wastes no words, though it is under-specified in content (addressed in other dimensions).

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It fails to mention the chain parameter (which is essential for a Cosmos multi-chain tool), the status filter options, or the fact that validators may be unbonded/unbonding. The description is too sparse for an agent to use it effectively.

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 descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to parameters like 'status' or 'limit' beyond what the schema already provides; it just says 'active validators,' which loosely aligns with the default status but adds no richness.

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 retrieves a list of validators for the Cosmos ecosystem, using specific verb 'Get' and resource 'active validators'. However, it does not distinguish between the different Cosmos-versus-other-chain validator tools (e.g., sui_get_validators, near_get_validators) or clarify that the tool can also return unbonded/unbonding validators via the status parameter.

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 versus alternatives. There is no mention of chain selection, status filtering, or that this is the Cosmos-specific validator getter among siblings. The description is too terse to offer context or exclusions.

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