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' and that it 'wraps ETH into stETH', which gives some context about the operation being a write action that requires signing elsewhere. However, it lacks critical details like required permissions, gas implications, rate limits, or what happens if the transaction fails. For a mutation 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 two sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose and adding a clarifying detail about the transaction value. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's complexity (a write operation for staking), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter context but misses behavioral details like error handling or response format. For a mutation tool in this context, it should provide more guidance on risks or next steps to be fully complete.

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 50% (only 'amountEth' has a description), so the description must compensate. It adds value by explaining that the 'tx's value field is the ETH amount to stake', which clarifies the purpose of the parameters beyond the schema. However, it doesn't detail the 'wallet' parameter's role or format, leaving some gaps. The description partially compensates for the low 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 Lido stake transaction'), the resource involved ('wraps ETH into stETH via stETH.submit'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'prepare_lido_unstake' by specifying it's for staking rather than unstaking. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 by mentioning it builds an 'unsigned transaction' for staking ETH into stETH, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'prepare_swap' or 'prepare_native_send'. No guidance is provided on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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