Monitor my validator

Goal: answer "is my validator (or one I'm considering delegating to) doing what it should" — current stake and trust, whether it's trending up or down, and who's actually behind the numbers.

The sequence

1. get_validator_detail { hotkey }                — current stake, trust, APY, nominator count
2. get_validator_history { hotkey, window: "30d" } — daily stake/emission series
3. get_validator_nominators { hotkey, limit }      — who's staking to it, ranked by net flow

All three take the same hotkey and can run in parallel — none depends on another's output.

What each output means

• get_validator_detail — avg_validator_trust close to 1.0 means the network consistently validates this hotkey's weights; apy_estimate is the current realized return; nominator_count is a rough popularity signal on its own, more useful alongside step 3's actual flow.
• get_validator_history — read total_stake_tao across the points array for the trend, not just the latest value. A validator can look fine on get_validator_detail alone while quietly bleeding stake day over day.
• get_validator_nominators — net_staked_tao per nominator (staked minus unstaked) is the honest signal; gross_staked_tao alone can look active on a nominator who's actually cycling stake in and out without net conviction.

Failure branch

A hotkey with nominator_count: 0 and an all-zero subnets array isn't necessarily wrong input — get_validator_detail's own contract returns a zeroed aggregate for a cold or never-registered hotkey rather than an error, so double-check the ss58 itself (a coldkey passed where a hotkey was expected is the most common mistake) before assuming the tool is broken.

Executed transcript (a subnet-1 validator, 2026-07-28)

// 1. get_validator_detail { hotkey: "5HbNZ77c...fqGe" }
{ "coldkey_identity": { "name": "Macrocosmos" }, "nominator_count": 45,
  "total_stake_tao": 1534314.77, "avg_validator_trust": 0.999985,
  "apy_estimate": 0.454058959, "subnets": [{ "netuid": 1, "validator_permit": true }] }

// 2. get_validator_history { hotkey: "5HbNZ77c...fqGe", window: "30d" }
// 19 daily points; the two ends of the series:
{ "snapshot_date": "2026-07-10", "total_stake_tao": 1526929.28 }
{ "snapshot_date": "2026-07-28", "total_stake_tao": 1534314.77 }

// 3. get_validator_nominators { hotkey: "5HbNZ77c...fqGe", limit: 5 }
{ "nominators": [
  { "coldkey": "5HCFWv...DHh", "net_staked_tao": 131.17, "event_count": 4 },
  { "coldkey": "5D2tFA...FcL", "net_staked_tao": 0.29,  "event_count": 1 },
  { "coldkey": "5CUYgS...ECR", "net_staked_tao": 0.03,  "event_count": 26 }
] }

Reading this one: stake grew ~0.5% over the window (1,526,929 → 1,534,315 TAO) with validator trust essentially at the ceiling — a stable, well-run validator. The nominator list is the more interesting read: the top-net-flow nominator staked once and stayed, while a smaller one made 26 events for a net position of 0.03 TAO — someone actively cycling stake in and out rather than holding a conviction position. Neither is wrong, but they're different signals get_validator_detail alone wouldn't have shown.

Tools used

get_validator_detail, get_validator_history, get_validator_nominators — same tools, callable directly over MCP (prompts/get name="monitor_my_validator") or as the REST routes each links to.