vaultpilot-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: the auto-discovery mechanism (scanning event logs), performance characteristics ('several seconds on a cold call'), and the fast path alternative. It doesn't mention error conditions or rate limits, but covers the main operational behavior.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: first states purpose, second explains the key parameter trade-off, third specifies return format. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the discovery mechanism, performance implications, and return format. It could benefit from mentioning error cases or what happens with invalid inputs, but covers the core functionality adequately given the context.

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 some context about marketIds (auto-discovery vs fast path) and mentions the return format, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's already well-documented in the schema descriptions.

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 verb 'fetch' and resource 'Morpho Blue positions for a wallet', specifying it returns per-market supplied/borrowed assets and collateral. It distinguishes from siblings like get_compound_positions by naming the specific protocol (Morpho Blue) and from get_lending_positions by focusing on positions rather than general lending data.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the fast path (pass explicit marketIds) versus the slower auto-discovery path (omit marketIds), including performance implications ('may take several seconds on a cold call'). This provides clear operational guidance for parameter selection.

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