VeChain MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), potential rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions (e.g., invalid addresses), or what the return format looks like (e.g., numeric balance, units). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly states the action and scope, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the resource and optional token focus.

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 (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, return values, or usage context. For a tool that retrieves financial data, more information on output format (e.g., balance in wei or decimals) and error handling would be beneficial to ensure correct invocation.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'address' and 'tokenAddress' indirectly by referring to 'wallet' and 'ERC20 token', but it doesn't explain what these parameters mean (e.g., that 'address' is the wallet address, 'tokenAddress' is optional for ERC20 tokens, or the pattern requirements). It adds minimal semantic value beyond what can be inferred from the schema's structure and patterns.

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 the resource 'balance of the wallet', specifying it can be for 'native currency or a specific ERC20 token'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_account or get_token_info_by_ticker by focusing on balance retrieval rather than general account info or token metadata. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like get_address or get_transaction, which might involve similar address parameters but different purposes.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid wallet address), exclusions (e.g., not for non-ERC20 tokens), or direct comparisons to siblings like get_account (which might provide broader account details) or get_token_allowance_evm (which checks token permissions). Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context for selection.

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