vaultpilot-mcp

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and effectively discloses key behaviors: it's a preparation step (not execution), returns a preview and handle, requires Ledger pairing, and integrates with TronGrid. It doesn't mention error cases or rate limits, but covers the essential workflow clearly.

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?

It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by prerequisites and next steps. Every sentence adds value, but could be slightly more concise by combining some workflow details.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context: purpose, workflow, prerequisites, and integration points. It lacks details on error handling or output structure, but covers the essential use case adequately.

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 fully documents parameters (from, to, amount with patterns and descriptions). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 explicitly states the verb ('Build') and resource ('unsigned TRON native TRX send transaction'), specifies the method ('via TronGrid's /wallet/createtransaction'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on TRON native transactions (vs. token sends or other protocols like prepare_token_send, prepare_tron_token_send).

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?

It provides explicit prerequisites ('Run pair_ledger_tron once per session first'), clear next steps ('Forward the handle via send_transaction'), and distinguishes from alternatives by specifying this is for native TRX sends (not tokens or other operations like prepare_tron_token_send or prepare_swap).

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