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 and does so effectively. It discloses the tool's read-only behavior, details what data is returned (claimable rewards, frozen TRX, pending unfreezes with timestamps, and formatted values), and mentions a rollup (`totalStakedUsd`). However, it lacks explicit rate limit or error handling information, preventing a perfect score.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific details on returned data and usage pairing. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension by an AI agent.

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 complexity of staking data and no output schema, the description provides a comprehensive overview of return values (raw SUN, formatted TRX, USD values, rollup) and behavioral context. It adequately compensates for the lack of structured output details, though minor gaps like error cases or pagination could exist.

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 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the single required parameter ('address') with its pattern and purpose. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter clarity.

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 verb ('Read') and resource ('TRON staking state') with specific scope ('for a base58 address'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on TRON staking details rather than other operations like claiming rewards or general portfolio summaries, making it easy to identify its unique function.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Read TRON staking state') and pairs it with an alternative ('pair with `prepare_tron_claim_rewards` to actually withdraw'), providing clear guidance on its read-only nature versus action-oriented siblings. This helps the agent choose correctly between querying and executing operations.

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