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 behavioral traits: it creates unsigned transactions (not signed/broadcast), has specific amount constraints (no 'max' support), and requires position querying first. However, it doesn't mention permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens after transaction preparation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, followed by critical constraints and prerequisites. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient for agent comprehension.

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 transaction preparation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of the core functionality and constraints. It explains what the tool does, important limitations, and prerequisites. However, it doesn't describe the return format or what happens after transaction preparation, leaving some gaps in the complete usage context.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reinforcing the amount parameter constraint ('Explicit amount only — "max" is not supported') without providing additional semantic context about parameter interactions or usage patterns.

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 withdraw transaction') and resource ('withdraws supplied loan token'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like prepare_morpho_withdraw_collateral. It explicitly mentions the transaction type and target asset, providing precise differentiation.

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 ('Explicit amount only — "max" is not supported') and includes a prerequisite action ('query your position first'). However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like prepare_morpho_withdraw_collateral or when not to use this tool versus other withdrawal methods.

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