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 for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the return format ('ERC-8004 compliant identity info'), it lacks critical operational details: whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with invalid addresses. The description provides basic functionality but misses important behavioral context.

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 perfectly concise - two sentences that efficiently communicate purpose and return format with zero wasted words. The first sentence clearly states what the tool does and what data it returns, while the second provides important compliance context. Every element earns its place.

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?

For a read operation with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It clearly states what data is returned but doesn't describe the response structure or format details. The ERC-8004 compliance mention is helpful but assumes prior knowledge. Given the missing output schema, more detail about return values would improve completeness.

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 already fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain format requirements for the address beyond '0x...' or clarify chain selection implications. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('Get on-chain identity data') and resource ('for an agent address'), listing exactly what data is retrieved (agent URI, agent type, registration timestamp, active status). It distinguishes itself from siblings like vaultfire_get_bonds or vaultfire_get_reputation by focusing on core identity information rather than financial or social metrics.

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 implies usage when identity data is needed for an agent address, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives like vaultfire_verify_agent (which might verify rather than retrieve) or vaultfire_discover_agents (which might list multiple agents). No when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites are mentioned.

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