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 explains that the transaction is unsigned and handles ERC-20 approvals, which is helpful. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what happens if the transaction fails, leaving 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise explanation of ERC-20 approval handling. Both sentences are essential and waste no words, making it highly 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic action and approval logic but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools like send_transaction, which could leave the agent uncertain about next steps.

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, so parameters are well-documented there. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying the tool's purpose relates to the parameters. No additional parameter semantics are provided in the description itself.

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 Compound V3 supply transaction') and the resource ('base token or collateral'), distinguishing it from siblings like prepare_compound_borrow or prepare_compound_withdraw. It precisely defines the tool's function without being tautological.

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 (for supply transactions in Compound V3) and mentions the need for ERC-20 approval handling, which is useful guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as prepare_aave_supply for different protocols.

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