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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes the output (score, tier, breakdown) but doesn't mention potential errors, rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. It adds some context by detailing the tier ranges and score components, but lacks operational traits like response format or failure modes.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by tier details and additional output information. Every sentence adds value (e.g., tier ranges, breakdown explanation) without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the output (score, tier, breakdown) and tier ranges, which compensates for the lack of output schema. However, it could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like error handling or data sources, leaving minor gaps.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters (address and chain) thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases, but it doesn't need to compensate for gaps, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get the Street Cred score and tier') and resource ('for an agent address'), distinguishing it from siblings like vaultfire_get_agent or vaultfire_get_reputation by focusing on a specific scoring metric. It explicitly mentions the score range (0-95) and tier breakdown, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 by specifying it's for an agent address, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like vaultfire_get_agent or vaultfire_get_reputation. There's no guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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