vaultpilot-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it builds unsigned transactions, handles conditional ERC-20 approvals, returns nested transactions when needed, and requires both transactions to be signed for success. It doesn't mention rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with invalid parameters, leaving some gaps.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second explains the approval workflow and signing requirements. No wasted words, and the most critical information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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?

For a transaction preparation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains the core workflow and approval logic well, but doesn't cover error cases, return format, or how to handle the unsigned transactions after preparation. Given the complexity and lack of structured documentation, it should provide more complete guidance.

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 only 40% schema description coverage (only 'amount' and 'approvalCap' have descriptions), the description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. However, the description's explanation of ERC-20 approval logic implicitly relates to the 'approvalCap' parameter's purpose, adding some semantic context. For a tool with 5 parameters and low schema coverage, this partial compensation warrants a 4.

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 supply transaction') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'prepare_aave_borrow' or 'prepare_compound_supply' by specifying the Aave V3 protocol and supply action. It goes beyond just restating the name by explaining the transaction preparation process.

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 about when ERC-20 approval is required ('If an ERC-20 approve() is required first...') and that both transactions must be signed for success. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'prepare_compound_supply' or other lending protocols, nor does it mention prerequisites like wallet connectivity or token balances.

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