VeChain MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it states the action and effect ('sets allowance to 0'), it doesn't mention transaction requirements (gas fees, network confirmation), permission needs, reversibility, or what happens on failure. For a blockchain write operation, this is a significant gap.

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 action and effect. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 blockchain write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about transaction behavior, error conditions, return values, and practical constraints like gas estimation or network requirements that are essential for proper tool 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?

The description doesn't explicitly name parameters, but with 0% schema description coverage, it effectively explains both parameters' purpose: 'tokenAddress' identifies the ERC20 token and 'spender' identifies the entity whose approval is being revoked. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema 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 specific action ('revoke approval'), target resource ('ERC20 token'), and effect ('sets allowance to 0'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'approve_token_evm' by focusing on revocation rather than granting approval.

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 when needing to remove token approval, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_token_allowance_evm' for checking current allowances or 'approve_token_evm' for granting approval. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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