WritersLogic crypto agents

vault-exit-lawyer

Vault Exit Lawyer — Before moving treasury funds out of an ERC-4626 or ERC-7540 vault: reads the chain at one pinned block and returns how much can exit now, the haircut vs convertToAssets, partial-exit maximum, liquidity coverage, queue/cooldown timing, admin-power flags (upgrade, pause, multisig threshold, timelock), and a verdict EXIT_NOW_FULL / EXIT_PARTIAL / QUEUED / BLOCKED / UNKNOWN. With a holder it simulates

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "chain": "<chain>",
      "vault": "<vault>",
      "exit": "<exit>"
    },
    "name": "vault-exit-lawyer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`exit`	Yes	Exactly one of shares or assets, as base-unit integer strings. shares may be "max" (needs holder).
`chain`	Yes	Chain the vault lives on.
`vault`	Yes	ERC-4626 or ERC-7540 vault address.
`holder`	No	Address that holds the shares. Enables an exact eth_call redeem simulation and per-holder limits.
`docsUrls`	No	Public documentation pages whose redemption claims are checked against the contract.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 15, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: pinned-block read semantics, the five verdict outcomes, admin-power flags (upgrade, pause, multisig threshold, timelock), and that a holder enables a simulation. It loses a point because the final sentence is truncated ('With a holder it simulates'), leaving the simulation behavior and any permission/rate-limit caveats unstated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The output enumeration is front-loaded and dense with useful detail, but the description ends mid-sentence ('With a holder it simulates'), which is a real structural defect that leaves a dangling clause. The long comma-separated output list is efficient but borders on a run-on.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description must convey return values, and it does so by naming the verdict enum and the key metrics returned. For a 5-parameter tool with a nested exit object, the main remaining gap is the truncated simulation sentence and the absence of any note on failure/UNKNOWN conditions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: the holder-simulation hint is already stated in the holder parameter's own description, and the shares/assets exclusivity is documented in the exit object. No new syntax or format meaning is contributed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('reads the chain at one pinned block and returns how much can exit now') and enumerates the concrete outputs: haircut vs convertToAssets, partial-exit maximum, liquidity coverage, queue/cooldown timing, admin-power flags, and a named verdict enum. An agent can tell this is a vault-exit liquidity analysis tool, distinct from the sibling lawyer/auditor tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear triggering condition: 'Before moving treasury funds out of an ERC-4626 or ERC-7540 vault.' That is a usable when-to-use cue. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All WritersLogic crypto agents tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?