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 an excellent job disclosing behavioral traits: it explains the 14-day cooldown for unlocking, the need for USB-HID signing via send_transaction, the return format (preview + opaque handle), and the reward mechanism limitations. It doesn't mention rate limits or specific error conditions, but covers most critical behavioral 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 zero waste: first sentence states the core purpose, subsequent sentences add crucial behavioral context and workflow guidance. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information about limitations, prerequisites, and next steps in the transaction flow.

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 complex transaction-building tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does remarkably well: it explains the purpose, behavioral constraints, workflow dependencies, and next steps. It could potentially detail the return structure more explicitly given no output schema, but covers most critical context for proper tool usage.

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%, providing complete documentation for all three parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only briefly mentioning the resource parameter's purpose (bandwidth for plain transfers, energy for smart-contract calls) which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool builds an unsigned TRON Stake 2.0 FreezeBalanceV2 transaction, specifying it locks TRX to earn bandwidth or energy and gains voting power. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on TRON-specific freeze operations, unlike other prepare_* tools for different protocols or actions.

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, including prerequisites (pairing with list_tron_witnesses + prepare_tron_vote for rewards), exclusions (freezing alone doesn't accrue TRX rewards), and alternatives (prepare_tron_unfreeze + prepare_tron_withdraw_expire_unfreeze for unlocking). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools in the TRON staking workflow.

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