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 mentions the transaction is 'unsigned' (important context) but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, gas implications, whether this is a simulation or actual transaction, or what happens after building (e.g., needs signing/broadcasting via another tool). For a financial transaction tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 - two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides crucial usage guidance about the 'max' amount. Every word earns its place and the information is front-loaded effectively.

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 complex financial transaction tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (transaction data? success status?), doesn't mention error conditions, and lacks behavioral context about the transaction lifecycle. Given the complexity and lack of structured data support, more comprehensive guidance is needed.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by explaining the special 'max' value for the amount parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 withdraw transaction') and distinguishes it from siblings like prepare_compound_supply or prepare_compound_repay by focusing on withdrawal. It specifies the protocol (Compound V3) and transaction type (unsigned), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 (to withdraw from Compound V3) and includes a specific usage tip about the 'max' amount. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like prepare_compound_repay or prepare_compound_borrow, which prevents a perfect score.

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