vaultpilot-mcp

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and provides rich behavioral context: it's an unsigned transaction requiring USB-HID signing via send_transaction, mentions a 14-day cooldown, TronGrid rejection conditions, and the return format (preview + opaque handle). It doesn't cover rate limits or auth details but adds substantial value beyond basic operation.

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 dense yet efficient, with every sentence earning its place: first sentence states purpose, second covers constraints and prerequisites, third explains the workflow and next steps, fourth describes returns and signing. It's front-loaded with critical information and wastes no words.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is highly complete: it explains the multi-step process, constraints, error conditions, return format, and integration with other tools. The only minor gap is lack of explicit output structure details, but overall it provides excellent context.

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 reinforces the amount constraint and resource context but doesn't add significant new semantic details beyond what's in the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the 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 specific action ('Build an unsigned TRON Stake 2.0 UnfreezeBalanceV2 transaction') and resource ('previously-frozen slice'), distinguishing it from siblings like prepare_tron_freeze (freezing) and prepare_tron_withdraw_expire_unfreeze (withdrawing after unfreeze). It precisely defines the operation's scope 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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use get_tron_staking first to check frozen amounts, avoid exceeding them, wait 14 days for pendingUnfreezes, then use prepare_tron_withdraw_expire_unfreeze to complete the process. It clearly outlines prerequisites, timing, and next steps, with named alternatives.

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