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 (fetching positions across chains) and return data, but lacks details on potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'fetch' but not explicit). The description adds useful context about chain support defaults but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 the tool's purpose, scope, and return data. It front-loads key information (what's fetched and for which protocols) without unnecessary elaboration, making every word earn 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (fetching multi-protocol, multi-chain data) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It clearly states what data is returned but doesn't describe the output format, structure, or potential edge cases. For a tool with no output schema, more detail on return values would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by clarifying the default behavior when 'chains' is omitted (scan all supported chains with protocol-specific defaults) and specifying the wallet address format context (EVM). However, it doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('fetch') and resources (Lido/stETH/wstETH and EigenLayer staking positions), explicitly listing the returned data (staked amounts, USD value, APR, delegation target). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_staking_rewards' (which likely focuses on rewards rather than positions) and 'estimate_staking_yield' (which likely projects future returns rather than current holdings).

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to inspect staking positions for a wallet across supported chains. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on position retrieval rather than preparation actions (e.g., 'prepare_lido_stake') or other data types (e.g., 'get_token_balance'). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or named alternatives for similar queries.

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