approve_moolah_vault

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context: it's a prerequisite for deposit, not needed for TRX vaults, and explains the risk of 'max' approval and revocation ('amount=0'). No contradiction with 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 three concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and key guidance, 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?

For a simple approval tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, when required, parameter tips, and safety warnings. It is complete for the task.

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 has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions. The description adds significant nuance for the 'amount' parameter (exact vs. max, revocation nuance), improving the agent's understanding beyond the schema. The other parameters ('vaultSymbol', 'network') are not elaborated, but the added value for 'amount' raises the score.

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 approves TRC20 token spending for a Moolah vault before depositing, distinguishing it from TRX vaults and other approval tools. It specifies the action, resource ('Moolah vault'), and scope, setting it apart from siblings like 'approve_moolah_proxy'.

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 tells when to use (before depositing, not for TRX vaults) and gives recommendations (exact amount preferred, 'max' only with user opt-in). It lacks explicit mention of alternatives among sibling approve tools, but the context is clear.

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