Indexer: Validators (v1)

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant behavioral context: the exact API endpoint, key metrics (nftYields, blockProbability, etc.), pagination support, and interpretation guidance. It does not contradict annotations, and the added detail is valuable beyond the structured data.

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 well-structured with clear sections (KEY METRICS, FILTERS, SORTING, PAGINATION, RECOMMENDATION GUIDELINES) and front-loaded with the purpose and an important note. It is somewhat lengthy but every section serves a purpose. Minor grammatical issues (e.g., 'all no status filter') slightly hinder conciseness.

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 (8 parameters, output schema, multiple enums, and domain-specific NFT yield logic), the description covers all necessary aspects: metrics explanation, filter/sort options, pagination, and even recommendation criteria. It is complete enough for an AI agent to correctly select and invoke the tool for delegation decisions.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description still adds substantial meaning by explaining each parameter's purpose in context: e.g., status filter conditions, sortBy options for NFT levels, pagination mechanics, and endpoint-specific constraints. This is a model example of enriching parameters beyond schema 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 the tool retrieves validator statistics via a specific API endpoint for Stargate NFT delegation decisions and validator performance. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getValidatorBlockRewards by focusing on NFT yield metrics and delegation context.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use context for NFT delegation decisions, with detailed filtering and sorting instructions. It includes recommendation guidelines and explains status filter usage (e.g., using 'ACTIVE' for current validators, no filter for NFT yields). However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools, which is minor given the specificity.

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