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 and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it builds an unsigned transaction (implying no execution), includes an approve step if needed (hinting at ERC-20 token approval), and explicitly states 'max' is not supported (a constraint). However, it doesn't mention potential costs, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 highly concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by two clarifying points. Every sentence earns its place by adding critical constraints 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?

Given the complexity (a transaction-building tool with 5 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the action, key constraints, and hints at behavioral aspects, but could benefit from mentioning output format or error handling to be fully comprehensive.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the 'amount' parameter must be explicit (not 'max'), but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 Morpho Blue repay transaction') and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying 'Includes an approve step if needed' and 'Explicit amount only — "max" is not supported', which differentiates it from other prepare_* tools that might support 'max' amounts.

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 ('Build an unsigned Morpho Blue repay transaction') and implicitly suggests alternatives by mentioning 'max' is not supported, but it doesn't explicitly name when-not-to-use scenarios or direct alternatives among siblings like prepare_morpho_borrow or prepare_aave_repay.

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