vaultpilot-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's 'purely forward-looking' (simulation only), doesn't read actual positions, and returns specific data fields (protocol, amount, APR, projected rewards). It could mention rate limits or error conditions but covers the essential safety profile.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance and behavioral notes. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient for an AI agent.

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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and its limitations. The only minor gap is lack of explicit mention about how current APRs are sourced or potential errors.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the asset context ('ETH for lido, LST for eigenlayer') and the forward-looking nature, which helps interpret the parameters beyond their schema definitions. However, it doesn't provide additional syntax or format details.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('project annual yield') and resources ('hypothetical staking amount for Lido or EigenLayer'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_staking_positions' which reads actual holdings. It explicitly answers 'what would I earn if I staked X ETH?' questions.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('before the user commits capital') and when not to use it ('does NOT read any wallet or on-chain position'), with a clear alternative named ('pair with get_staking_positions for actual holdings'). This perfectly distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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