VeChain MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It doesn't disclose that this is a write operation requiring authorization, potential transaction fees, irreversible nature, or network-specific constraints. 'Send' implies mutation, but transparency is minimal.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes essential details (currency types, units) without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 of a financial transaction tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses critical context like error handling, return values, security implications, and integration with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for safe usage.

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 description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying 'base units' for amount and clarifying token types, but doesn't explain parameter roles (e.g., tokenAddress optional for native currency) or format details beyond schema patterns. Baseline 3 as it partially addresses gaps.

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 action ('Send') and resources ('native currency or an ERC20 token'), specifying the unit ('base units'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'approve_token_evm' or 'sign_raw_transaction' by focusing on direct transfers, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites like having sufficient balance or gas fees, or when to use 'approve_token_evm' for token approvals first. This leaves usage context unclear.

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