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. It discloses key behavioral traits: it builds an unsigned transaction (implying no execution), handles ERC-20 approvals if needed, and returns repay in '.next' if approval is required. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, which are important for a transaction-building 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential usage notes in two concise sentences. Every sentence earns its place by providing critical information without redundancy, making it efficient 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 complexity of a transaction-building tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the main action and key parameters but lacks details on return values, error handling, or full parameter explanations, which could hinder an agent's correct invocation.

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 40%, but the description adds significant value beyond the schema. It explains the 'amount' parameter's 'max' option for full debt repayment, clarifies the approval process with '.next', and implies usage of 'asset' and 'wallet'. However, it does not detail 'chain' or 'approvalCap' semantics, leaving some gaps.

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 repay transaction.' It distinguishes from siblings like prepare_aave_borrow and prepare_aave_supply by focusing on repay, and mentions the optional ERC-20 approve() handling, which adds specificity beyond just the name.

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 on when to use this tool: for repaying debt on Aave V3, with guidance on handling ERC-20 approvals and using 'max' for full repayment. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., vs. prepare_compound_repay), though the Aave-specific focus is implied.

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