Vaultfire MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action and return type. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or how the on-chain hashing affects results. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and key details. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of querying on-chain data with hashed capabilities and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., structure of addresses, pagination), error conditions, or how capability matching works. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this leaves too much unspecified for reliable use.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the format of capability tags or the implications of chain selection. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'find' and resource 'registered AI agents' with the mechanism 'by capability tags', and specifies the return type 'list of agent addresses'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'vaultfire_get_agent' which might retrieve details about a specific agent rather than searching by capabilities.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'vaultfire_get_agent' for individual agent details or 'vaultfire_verify_agent' for verification, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

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