Nimiq validator pools

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real value on top: it quantifies the cost ("one call to the public validators list"), states it never signs or sends, and explains that netYieldPercent is a fee-adjusted yield on total network stake that drifts with emission and stake, which is non-obvious. It does not describe pagination or the full pool record, so it is not exhaustive.

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 resource and ranking rule are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the read-only and netYieldPercent notes follow logically. The tiebreak enumeration and the yield explanation are dense but each carries information an agent cannot get from the schema; only the "Nothing is pinned first" clause feels slightly redundant with the ranking sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining return ordering and the meaning of the key yielded field (netYieldPercent), which is what an agent needs to interpret results. It stops short of enumerating the other pool fields or pagination behavior, which is a modest gap for a two-parameter list tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with only two simple parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little meaning to includeNonProducing by explaining where non-producing pools sit in the ranking, but it says nothing about limit or default truncation behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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 definition names a precise resource and scope — the Nimiq validator pools of the current epoch — and spells out the ordering so it is clearly the neutral listing rather than a stake/yield projection tool. It is a nominal phrase rather than an explicit verb, and it never names a sibling such as get_staking or project_yield to contrast against, so it stops just short of full differentiation.

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?

"Ranked neutrally, exactly as the NimBooks app ranks them" and "Nothing is pinned first" imply the use case (mirroring the app's display order), and the note that non-producing pools are listed last implies when includeNonProducing matters. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_staking or project_yield, and no exclusions.

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