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 (indicating it doesn't sign or execute) and includes conditional ERC-20 approval logic. However, it lacks details on error conditions, gas estimation, or what the output looks like (though no output schema exists). The description doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds crucial behavioral context about ERC-20 approval. It's front-loaded with the main action and efficiently conveys necessary information without redundancy.

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 tool with 5 parameters, 40% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the transaction-building purpose and approval logic well, but lacks details on error handling, output format, or interactions with sibling tools like 'send_transaction'. Given the complexity, it should ideally mention that this prepares a transaction for later signing/broadcasting.

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 by explaining the ERC-20 approval logic and clarifying that 'amount' is in human-readable decimals (reinforcing the schema). It provides context for 'approvalCap' options ('unlimited', 'exact', or specific decimal), which compensates for the coverage gap. However, it doesn't explain 'wallet', 'strategy', or 'token' parameters beyond their patterns.

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 EigenLayer StrategyManager.depositIntoStrategy transaction' with the additional detail 'Includes an ERC-20 approve step if needed.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'prepare_lido_stake' or 'prepare_aave_supply' by specifying the exact protocol (EigenLayer) and contract method (StrategyManager.depositIntoStrategy).

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 implies usage context through 'if needed' for the ERC-20 approval step, suggesting it handles token allowance checks. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'prepare_token_send' or other 'prepare_' tools for different protocols. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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