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 describes the action ('poll'), method ('via the chain's RPC'), and possible outcomes ('pending / success / failed, or unknown'), which covers core behavior. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation, leaving gaps for a tool that interacts with external RPCs.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('poll a transaction's status') and follows with method and outcomes. There's no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (RPC interaction, status polling) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does and returns, but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, latency) and doesn't fully address parameter semantics. For a tool with no structured support, it meets basic needs but leaves room for improvement in 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explicitly mention the parameters 'chain' or 'txHash', but it implies their use through context ('transaction's status', 'chain's RPC'). This adds some semantic meaning, though it falls short of fully explaining parameter roles or formats (e.g., what 'txHash' represents). Given the low schema coverage, this partial compensation warrants a score above baseline.

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 ('poll a transaction's status') and resources ('via the chain's RPC'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on transaction status polling rather than positions, simulations, or preparations. It explicitly mentions what it returns, making its function unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies usage for checking transaction status, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., after sending a transaction), exclusions, or how it differs from other status-related tools like 'get_ledger_status'. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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