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 delivers well. It discloses key behavioral traits: the 24-hour cooldown enforcement (with error consequences), the need for prerequisite checking, the unsigned nature of the transaction, and the requirement to forward via 'send_transaction' for USB-HID signing. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth needs, but covers most critical aspects.

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 with three sentences: purpose, constraints/prerequisites, and output/next steps. Every sentence adds critical value—no wasted words—and it's front-loaded with the core action.

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 cooldown constraints) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose, constraints, prerequisites, and next steps. A minor gap is not detailing the return format ('preview + opaque handle') more explicitly, but it's sufficient for agent use.

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 the 'from' parameter thoroughly (TRON address pattern, cooldown note). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3.

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 TRON WithdrawBalance transaction') and resource ('claims accumulated voting rewards to the owner's balance'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_tron_staking' (read-only) and other 'prepare_tron_' tools (freeze, vote, send). It explicitly identifies the transaction type and purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Pair with `get_tron_staking` first to read `claimableRewards` and avoid empty-claim tx builds.' It also specifies when not to use it (if within 24-hour cooldown) and names the alternative tool ('get_tron_staking') for prerequisite checking.

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