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 communicates key behavioral traits: that this is an estimation tool (not exact), uses current APR as a proxy (implying approximations may not reflect historical rate changes), and clarifies it's not querying on-chain data (setting expectations about data freshness and accuracy). It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, but provides solid core behavioral context.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core functionality, the second provides crucial caveats. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words while covering essential information about the tool's limitations.

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 tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains what the tool does, what it doesn't do, and the estimation methodology. Without an output schema, it doesn't describe return values, but for an estimation tool with clear parameters, this is reasonably complete. The main gap is lack of information about output format or error cases.

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%, providing complete documentation for both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'period' generically but not elaborating on how the estimation works with different periods or the wallet parameter. It meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't enhance understanding of parameter 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('estimate staking rewards earned') and resources ('over a given period using current APR as a proxy'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_staking_positions' (which likely shows current holdings) and 'estimate_staking_yield' (which might project future earnings) by focusing on historical reward estimation with explicit caveats.

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 ('estimate staking rewards earned over a given period') and explicitly states what it is NOT ('not an on-chain rewards query'), which helps differentiate it from potential alternatives that might query actual blockchain data. However, it doesn't explicitly name when to use sibling tools like 'get_staking_positions' or 'estimate_staking_yield' instead.

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