list_solana_validators

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces this by emphasizing it is read-only, pulls a public feed, and includes important caveats like 'the MCP is NOT the source of truth' and verification steps. Adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 relatively long but well-structured: front-loaded with purpose, then details, then workflow instructions. Every sentence serves a purpose, covering core functionality, defaults, usage order, and verification steps. Could be slightly more concise, but overall effective.

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 tool's complexity (nested filters, sorting, workflow dependency), the description is remarkably complete. It explains return columns, defaults, sort options, usage order, and even includes invariant notes and instructions in the response. Without an output schema, the description adequately covers the return values and behavior.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description adds context beyond schema by explaining default values (excludeDelinquent=true, excludeSuperminority=false) and clarifying sort behavior (e.g., `score` = wiz_score descending). This extra context justifies a score above baseline 3.

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 it is a 'Read-only validator-ranking helper for prepare_native_stake_delegate', specific verb ('list'), resource ('Solana validators'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by noting its role as a prerequisite. It uniquely explains its purpose in the workflow, which differentiates it from other tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'USE THIS BEFORE prepare_native_stake_delegate'. Provides detailed workflow instructions including verification steps (open stakewizUrl, byte-equality-check votePubkey). Also explains the benefit (surfacing a ranked menu instead of forcing user to leave). This is exemplary usage guidance.

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