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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's scope (cross-chain aggregation, specific protocols covered), data sources (DefiLlama for pricing), and important behavioral constraints (multi-wallet + tronAddress throws an error, default chain scanning behavior). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling patterns.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured with clearer separation between input guidance and output explanation. The TRON-specific details are necessary but make the description somewhat dense.

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 complexity (cross-chain portfolio aggregation with multiple protocols) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description does an excellent job explaining what the tool does, when to use it, and key behavioral aspects. It comprehensively covers the output structure (totalUsd, breakdown, raw arrays) and input semantics. The main gap is lack of explicit error handling or performance characteristics.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the relationship between wallet and wallets parameters ('Provide this OR wallets (not both)'), clarifying the chains parameter behavior ('unless chains narrows it'), and providing crucial context about tronAddress usage alongside single wallet mode and the resulting output structure.

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 ('aggregation', 'fans out', 'assembles') and resources (multiple chains, wallet addresses, various DeFi positions). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a comprehensive portfolio aggregator rather than individual protocol readers like get_compound_positions or get_lp_positions.

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 ('Default tool for "what's in my portfolio?" / "total value" questions') and when to prefer alternatives ('prefer it over calling each per-protocol reader separately'). It also clarifies usage scenarios for single vs. multi-wallet modes and TRON integration.

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