VeChain 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 states it 'gets information' but doesn't describe if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens if the ticker isn't found. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying what information is retrieved and how, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., JSON structure), error conditions, or dependencies, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use in a blockchain environment.

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 description adds meaning by specifying that the 'ticker' parameter is a 'ticker symbol' used to retrieve token information like contract address and decimals. With schema description coverage at 0% (the schema only indicates 'ticker' is a required string), this compensates somewhat, but doesn't fully detail format constraints or examples.

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 'information about a configured token', specifying it retrieves contract address and decimals by ticker symbol. It distinguishes from siblings like get_balance or get_transaction by focusing on token metadata rather than balances or transactions, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the token must be pre-configured), exclusions, or compare with sibling tools like get_token_allowance_evm for different token-related queries.

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