vaultpilot-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this exceptionally well by explaining: ranking logic (active SRs rank ≤ 27), reward distribution mechanics (160 TRX/block pool, pro-rata distribution), APR calculation methodology and limitations, default behavior (top-27 only), and how the response changes when address parameter is provided. This provides rich behavioral context beyond basic functionality.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states purpose, the second explains ranking and rewards, the third covers APR estimates, the fourth explains address parameter benefits, and the fifth clarifies the includeCandidates default. While slightly dense, there's no wasted text and the structure guides the reader from basic to advanced usage.

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 TRON staking mechanics and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description provides comprehensive context. It explains ranking systems, reward distribution, APR calculation methodology, parameter effects on response data, and integration with the voting workflow. This is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool effectively in the broader ecosystem.

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains that when address is provided, the response includes specific fields (userVotes, totalTronPower, etc.) for allocation comparison, and clarifies that includeCandidates shows 'the long tail' where candidates don't produce blocks. This adds practical usage context that enhances parameter understanding.

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: 'List TRON Super Representatives (SRs) + SR candidates, ranked by total vote count.' It specifies the exact resource (TRON Super Representatives and candidates) and the verb (list with ranking). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'prepare_tron_vote' by being a read-only information retrieval tool rather than an action tool.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'When `address` is passed, also returns... so you can diff against a target allocation before calling `prepare_tron_vote`.' It also specifies when to use the includeCandidates parameter and distinguishes this tool from voting preparation tools. The guidance is comprehensive and directly addresses the tool's role in the workflow.

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