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: the transaction is 'unsigned' (needs signing elsewhere), includes conditional 'approve step if needed', and handles 'max' amounts. However, it doesn't mention important aspects like gas costs, potential reverts, rate limits, or what happens if the approval fails. For a financial transaction tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 perfectly concise - one sentence that front-loads the core action ('Build an unsigned Morpho Blue supplyCollateral transaction'), then adds essential qualifiers ('adds collateral to a market') and critical behavioral information ('Includes an approve step if needed'). Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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 of a financial transaction tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and one key behavioral aspect (approval step), but doesn't address transaction outcomes, error conditions, or integration requirements. The 100% schema coverage helps, but for a tool that creates unsigned transactions, more context about next steps would be valuable.

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'approve step if needed' which relates to the approvalCap parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions or usage patterns. 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 supplyCollateral transaction'), the resource ('adds collateral to a market'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for Morpho Blue collateral supply (vs. other prepare_morpho_* tools like prepare_morpho_supply, prepare_morpho_withdraw_collateral). It explicitly mentions the 'approve step if needed' which differentiates it from simpler transactions.

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 about when to use this tool ('adds collateral to a market') and references a sibling tool for discovery ('Discover via get_morpho_positions' in the schema). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling prepare_* tools (e.g., when to use prepare_morpho_supply vs. prepare_morpho_supply_collateral).

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