vaultpilot-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool builds unsigned transactions (not signed/sent), handles 'max' amount resolution at build time, and works with ERC-20 tokens. However, it doesn't mention permission requirements, rate limits, or what the output looks like (transaction object format).

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first states the core purpose, the second provides crucial parameter guidance. Every word earns its place, and the most important information (what it does and the 'max' feature) is front-loaded.

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 (transaction building with 5 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the core purpose and key parameter behavior well, but doesn't explain the output format, chain-specific considerations, or error conditions that would be helpful for this type of tool.

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 only 20% schema description coverage, the description compensates significantly by explaining the 'amount' parameter's special 'max' value behavior and clarifying it uses human-readable decimals (not raw wei). However, it doesn't provide context for other parameters like 'wallet', 'chain', 'token', or 'to' beyond what the schema patterns indicate.

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 ERC-20 transfer transaction') and resource (ERC-20 token transfer). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'prepare_native_send' (native currency) and 'prepare_tron_token_send' (different blockchain) by specifying ERC-20 tokens on EVM chains.

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 (for ERC-20 transfers) and includes a specific usage pattern ('Pass `amount: "max"` to send the full balance'). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives like 'prepare_native_send' for native currency transfers.

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