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 of behavioral disclosure and excels at this. It explains critical behavioral traits: 'VoteWitness REPLACES the wallet's entire prior vote allocation atomically' (destructive behavior), 'Sum of `count` values must not exceed the wallet's available TRON Power' (validation constraint), 'Rewards accrue per block and are harvested via `prepare_tron_claim_rewards` (24h cooldown)' (reward mechanics), and 'Returns a preview + opaque handle' (output format).

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 front-loaded purpose, followed by critical warnings, prerequisites, and next steps. Every sentence earns its place: the first establishes purpose, the second explains atomic replacement, the third covers validation, the fourth details reward mechanics, and the fifth explains output and signing flow. No wasted 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-building tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides comprehensive context. It covers purpose, behavioral constraints (atomic replacement, validation), prerequisites (check available votes), reward mechanics, output format (preview + handle), and next steps (forward to send_transaction). This is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant semantic context beyond the schema: it explains that 'Pass every SR you intend to back (not just a delta); an empty `votes` array clears all votes' clarifies the atomic replacement behavior, and 'Sum of `count` values must not exceed the wallet's available TRON Power' adds validation logic not in the schema. However, it doesn't fully explain the relationship between 'count' and TRON Power beyond what's in the schema description.

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 VoteWitnessContract transaction') and resource ('casts votes for Super Representatives to earn voting rewards on frozen TRX'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'prepare_tron_claim_rewards' by focusing on vote creation rather than reward harvesting.

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 versus alternatives: 'check `list_tron_witnesses(address)` → `availableVotes` first' for prerequisites, and 'forward via `send_transaction` for USB-HID signing on the paired Ledger' for next steps. It also mentions 'Rewards accrue per block and are harvested via `prepare_tron_claim_rewards`' to differentiate related operations.

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