Vaultfire MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves data (implied read-only) and lists the types of details returned, but lacks information on behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, authentication needs, or whether it's a query or mutation. It adds some context but is incomplete for a tool with no annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently states the purpose and return details without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and provides essential information concisely.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description partially compensates by listing return details, but it does not fully cover behavioral aspects or provide a complete picture for a tool with two parameters. It is adequate but has clear gaps in usage guidance and transparency.

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 input schema already documents both parameters ('address' and 'chain') with descriptions and enums. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or default behaviors, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('Get') and resource ('partnership bonds for an address'), specifying it returns bond IDs and details like partner addresses, type, stake, creation date, and status. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'vaultfire_get_agent' or 'vaultfire_get_reputation', which might handle different data types, so it lacks sibling differentiation for a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'vaultfire_discover_agents' or 'vaultfire_verify_agent', leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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