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 usefully adds context about the transaction being 'unsigned' (impiring it requires signing elsewhere) and the collateral requirement, but it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like (e.g., transaction data format). This is adequate but has clear gaps for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, key constraints (variable rate, collateral requirement), and no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by adding critical 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 complexity of a financial transaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the core action and prerequisites but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., error handling), output format, or integration with sibling tools like send_transaction. This is adequate but leaves significant gaps for safe agent use.

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 low at 25%, with only the 'amount' parameter having a description. The description compensates by implicitly clarifying the purpose of parameters (e.g., 'wallet' as the borrower, 'asset' as the token to borrow, 'chain' for the blockchain), though it does not explicitly explain each parameter. For 4 parameters with minimal schema documentation, this adds meaningful value beyond the schema.

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 ('Build an unsigned Aave V3 borrow transaction') with the resource ('borrow transaction') and distinguishes it from alternatives by specifying 'variable rate — stable rate is deprecated and reverts on production markets.' This differentiates it from potential stable-rate borrowing tools and sibling tools like prepare_compound_borrow.

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 ('The borrower must already have sufficient collateral supplied'), which is a critical prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., prepare_compound_borrow), which would be needed for a score of 5.

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