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. It discloses the tool's purpose (checking liquidation proximity) and return behavior (positions below threshold), but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or data freshness. It adequately describes core behavior but misses operational traits.

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 two sentences with zero waste, front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently detailing the threshold behavior. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function and parameters.

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 is moderately complete for a 2-parameter tool. It covers the purpose and threshold logic but lacks details on return format (e.g., structure of positions), error cases, or integration context, leaving gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 explains the 'threshold' parameter's purpose (health factor cutoff) and default value (1.5), adding meaning beyond the schema's numeric constraints. However, it does not clarify the 'wallet' parameter's role or format, leaving partial 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 specific action ('Check for Aave V3 lending positions approaching liquidation') and resource ('positions'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_lending_positions' by focusing on health alerts rather than general position listing. It precisely defines the scope with the health factor threshold.

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 monitoring liquidation risks in Aave V3, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'get_lending_positions' for broader queries. It provides clear context for risk assessment but lacks explicit exclusions or sibling comparisons.

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