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 effectively describes key traits: it builds an unsigned transaction (implying no immediate execution), handles ERC-20 approvals conditionally, and references a specific contract method (`requestWithdrawals`). It doesn't cover rate limits, error conditions, or output format, but provides substantial operational context 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 clarifying second sentence about approvals. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 (building unsigned transactions with conditional approvals), no annotations, no output schema, and moderate schema coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the main action and approval behavior but lacks details on output format, error handling, or integration with other tools like send_transaction, leaving room for improvement in guiding the agent.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by explaining the overall purpose and the approval logic, which contextualizes the 'approvalCap' parameter. However, it doesn't detail parameter interactions or provide examples beyond what's in the schema, leaving some gaps in semantic understanding.

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 withdrawal request transaction'), identifies the resource (Lido withdrawal), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for unstaking (vs. prepare_lido_stake for staking). It explicitly mentions wrapping `requestWithdrawals` on the Lido Withdrawal Queue, providing technical specificity.

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 'includes an approve step if needed,' suggesting it handles token approvals automatically. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like prepare_token_send or other withdrawal methods, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions beyond the implied approval logic.

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