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 delivers comprehensive behavioral disclosure. It explains the blocking nature of the call, different routing paths (EVM vs TRON), physical user approval requirement, handle expiration (15 minutes), single-use limitation, and session requirements for TRON. This goes well beyond basic functionality.

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 appropriately sized for a complex tool with critical safety implications. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by important details. While somewhat dense, every sentence earns its place by providing essential operational and safety information.

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 transaction signing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides exceptional completeness. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral characteristics, parameter semantics, safety requirements, and operational constraints. The only minor gap is not explicitly describing return values, but given the complexity covered, this is acceptable.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the handle's origin (from prepare_* tools), its purpose (ensuring tx previewed is tx sent), and the confirmed parameter's contractual nature. It also mentions handle ordering for multi-step transactions, which isn't in the schema.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Forward') and resource ('already-prepared transaction to the Ledger device for user signing'), clearly stating what the tool does. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explaining it's for finalizing transactions prepared by various prepare_* tools, not for preparing transactions itself.

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 usage guidelines: it states when to use (after prepare_* tools, with confirmed: true), when not to use (raw calldata not accepted), and alternatives (different prepare_* tools for different transaction types). It also specifies prerequisites like calling pair_ledger_tron for TRON handles.

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