vaultpilot-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return data structure (token pair, amounts, fee tier, etc.) which is valuable behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'fetch' implies reading).

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates purpose, scope, and return values without unnecessary words. Every element earns its place.

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?

For a read operation with 2 parameters (one optional with clear enums) and no output schema, the description provides good context about what data is returned. It could be more complete by mentioning the optional 'chains' parameter or potential pagination, but covers the essential purpose and output well.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but mentions no parameters explicitly. However, it implies the 'wallet' parameter through 'for a wallet' and suggests chain filtering might be relevant through 'Uniswap V3' context. Since there are only 2 parameters and one is optional with clear enum values in the schema, the description provides adequate context for basic usage.

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'), resource ('Uniswap V3 liquidity-provider positions'), and scope ('for a wallet'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_compound_positions and get_lending_positions by specifying the protocol (Uniswap V3) and position type (liquidity-provider).

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 context by specifying 'for a wallet' and listing return fields, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_portfolio_summary or get_token_balance. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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