vaultpilot-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well. It discloses key behavioral traits: that it builds unsigned transactions for Ledger signing, automatically handles ERC-20 approvals if needed, allows chaining via '.next', provides a preview, and explains the approvalCap default behavior. It doesn't mention rate limits or error conditions, but covers most essential operational details.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence establishes core purpose and key parameters. The second explains the approval behavior and return value. No wasted words, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 5-parameter transaction-building tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides substantial context: purpose, parameter guidance, behavioral details, and return format. It could mention error cases or what the 'handle' return value contains, but covers most essential aspects given the complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains that market params are resolved on-chain from marketId, clarifies that amount uses human-readable decimals with 'max' option, and provides practical guidance on approvalCap usage (defaults to unlimited, 'exact' option, ceiling requirements). This significantly enhances parameter 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 explicitly states the verb ('Build an unsigned Morpho Blue supply transaction') and resource ('deposits the market's loan token to earn lending yield'), making the purpose specific and clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'prepare_morpho_supply_collateral' by focusing on loan token deposits rather than collateral, and from 'prepare_aave_supply' by specifying the Morpho Blue protocol.

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 on when to use this tool: for building supply transactions in Morpho Blue markets. It implicitly distinguishes from alternatives by mentioning market parameters are resolved on-chain from marketId, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives beyond the sibling list.

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