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 return format ('Returns amount, decimals, symbol, and USD value') and chain-specific behaviors (e.g., TRON handling). However, it doesn't mention potential errors, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first covers the core functionality and main parameters, the second handles TRON-specific details. Every phrase adds value, with no wasted words, and it's front-loaded with the most important information.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It explains parameters, return values, and chain-specific behaviors. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on error cases or response structure, slightly limiting 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: wallet (Ethereum vs. TRON formats), token (native vs. contract addresses), and chain (supported chains and defaults). It provides crucial semantic context beyond the schema's patterns and enums, such as the meaning of 'native' and TRON-specific formats.

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 specific action ('fetch a wallet's balance') and resource ('any ERC-20 token or the chain's native coin'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_token_price (price only) or get_portfolio_summary (aggregated view). It precisely defines what the tool does without being tautological.

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 get token balances) and includes specific parameter guidance (e.g., 'Pass token: "native" for ETH'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for related purposes, such as get_portfolio_summary for aggregated balances.

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