near_get_validators

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get information', implying a read operation, but discloses nothing about the nature of the data, response shape, current validator set semantics, or any potential caveats. This is minimal transparency, slightly better than a tautology but still lacking substance.

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, short sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word earns its place, and as a one-liner, it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, placing the burden on the description to convey what the agent can expect. The phrase 'information about current validators' is minimally viable but vague about the returned data structure or fields. It gives an agent enough to infer a read operation, but not enough to predict the exact output, making it a 3.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema is empty and the description needs to explain any parameter details, which is unnecessary. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none to describe.

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 action ('Get information') and the resource ('current validators'), and the 'near' prefix in the tool name provides chain context. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling validator tools like sui_get_validators or cosmos_get_validators beyond the name, so it's clear but not fully differentiating.

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, no use case context, and no exclusions. It simply states what it does without any hint about scenarios or prerequisites, offering 'no guidance' per the rubric.

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