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 scoring range (0-100) and factors considered, but lacks critical behavioral details: data sources beyond DefiLlama/Immunefi, update frequency, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with unknown protocols. For a risk assessment tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, dense sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, scoring range, components, and interpretation. Every element earns its place with zero wasted words, making it highly front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (risk scoring with multiple factors), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the core purpose and scoring logic but lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter format, and output structure. For a tool with this context, more comprehensive guidance would be beneficial.

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 description doesn't mention the 'protocol' parameter explicitly, but schema description coverage is 0% (no schema descriptions), and there's only one parameter. The description compensates by explaining what the tool evaluates (DeFi protocols), providing enough context to understand what the parameter should be. However, it doesn't specify format (e.g., protocol name, address, slug).

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: 'Return a 0-100 risk score for a DeFi protocol' with specific components listed (TVL size, 30-day TVL trend, contract age, audit count, bug-bounty status). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on protocol-level risk assessment rather than contract security checks, position queries, or transaction preparation.

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 through 'Higher = safer' and the risk components, suggesting it's for evaluating protocol safety. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_contract_security' or 'check_permission_risks', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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