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 the action ('sign') but doesn't explain what signing entails (e.g., cryptographic operation, output format, permissions required, or side effects). This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves sensitive wallet operations.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 signing operation (likely involving cryptography and wallet access), no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 mentions 'message' but provides no details on format, encoding, or constraints (e.g., plain text, hex, length limits). This adds minimal value beyond the schema's parameter name, failing to address the coverage gap.

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 ('sign') and resource ('message with the wallet'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'sign_certificate', 'sign_raw_transaction', or 'sign_typed_data_evm', which also involve signing operations, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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. With multiple signing-related siblings (sign_certificate, sign_raw_transaction, sign_typed_data_evm), the description offers no context on use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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