vaultpilot-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses key behaviors: it's a read-only fetch operation (implied by 'fetch'), it scans across multiple chains, returns detailed position data including USD valuations, and handles empty results gracefully. However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, which are minor gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidelines and edge cases. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the tool, the second provides usage contexts, and the third clarifies empty results. No wasted words, and it's 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the return data (supply/borrow balances, collateral deposits, USD valuations) and edge cases (empty list). However, it could be more complete by detailing the output structure or error handling, but for a read-only tool with clear usage, it's largely sufficient.

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 schema already documents both parameters (wallet address format, chains enum and default behavior). The description adds marginal value by implying the wallet is used to 'execute this action' and that chains are 'selected chains', but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('fetch Compound V3 positions'), the resource ('wallet across all known markets'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying Compound V3 (Comet) positions, unlike generic tools like 'get_lending_positions' or 'get_portfolio_summary'. It explicitly mentions the scope (all markets on selected chains) and the return data structure.

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 usage scenarios: 'to answer my Compound positions' and 'before preparing a prepare_compound_* action so you have the right market address'. It also distinguishes from alternatives by specifying Compound V3 markets (e.g., cUSDCv3) and mentions it returns an empty list if no exposure exists, clarifying when not to use it.

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