Indexer: Validator block rewards (v1)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false. The description adds detail about the return structure (split into delegator/validator rewards) and the meaning of status filters. This context is beyond the annotations, enhancing transparency 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 three sentences, front-loaded with verb and resource. Every sentence provides essential information: endpoint, return fields, and filtering options. No fluff or redundancy.

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 has no required parameters, 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and thorough annotations, the description covers purpose, filters, pagination, and return data. It is complete for a read-only, idempotent tool with good structured metadata.

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 well-described parameters. The description adds value by explaining the endpoint context and providing usage examples for the status parameter (status=VALIDATED for produced blocks, MISSED for missed). This goes beyond the schema's enum descriptions.

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 'Fetch VTHO rewards per block' and specifies the endpoint. It lists return fields (blockReward, priorityReward, total, delegatorRewards, validatorRewards) and filters (blockNumber, validator, status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like getValidatorDelegations which handle delegations.

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 explains when to use (for per-block rewards) and how to filter by status (VALIDATED vs MISSED), pagination, and sort direction. It implicitly differentiates from other validator tools but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide direct alternatives.

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