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 and does well: it discloses that the transaction is unsigned (requires forwarding via 'send_transaction'), mentions error behavior (unknown TRC-20s rejected with explicit error), describes default fee_limit (100 TRX) and override option, and notes display quirks on Ledger devices (USDT renders natively, others may show raw hex). It doesn't cover rate limits or authentication needs, but provides substantial behavioral context.

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 in a single paragraph with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then details constraints, defaults, return values, and next steps. Every sentence earns its place by adding critical information about token support, error handling, fee defaults, Ledger signing, and display behavior.

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 of a transaction-building tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well: it explains the tool's role in a two-step process (prepare then send), covers key behavioral aspects, and references sibling tools. However, it doesn't fully describe the return value ('preview + opaque handle') or potential error cases beyond unknown tokens, leaving some gaps for a tool with significant consequences.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context: it clarifies that 'token' is limited to the canonical set and that 'amount' decimals are resolved from a canonical table (6 for USDT/USDC, 18 for USDD/TUSD), and explains the purpose of 'feeLimitTrx' override. However, it doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Build an unsigned TRC-20 transfer transaction' with specific details about token support (canonical set only: USDT, USDC, USDD, TUSD) and the mechanism (via TronGrid's /wallet/triggersmartcontract). It distinguishes from siblings like 'prepare_token_send' by specifying TRC-20 tokens on TRON and from 'prepare_tron_native_send' by focusing on token transfers rather than native TRX.

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: for building unsigned TRC-20 transfers for specific tokens, with a forward step via 'send_transaction' for USB-HID signing on Ledger. It also specifies when not to use it: unknown TRC-20s are rejected, and it mentions alternatives implicitly by contrasting with native sends and other prepare_* tools for different operations like staking or swaps.

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