This MCP server exposes 27 tools for ERC-8192 mandated execution workflows. However, the evaluation is severely hampered by the inability to inspect actual tool definitions. The source code provided shows contract loading infrastructure (loadTools.ts) but does NOT include the actual tool handler implementations or explicit tool registration. Tool names and risk levels are listed in the metadata, but without access to the handlers.ts file contents, input schemas, descriptions, and parameter details cannot be verified. Only 1 of 27 tools (factory_get_default_address) has a visible input schema in the metadata. The remaining 26 tools' schemas are not shown. Per scoring rules: tools without visible schemas score 0 on schema dimension; tools without visible descriptions score 0 on description dimension. The few hints available (tool names like 'vault_bootstrap', 'vault_execute_asset_transfer') suggest reasonable action-verb naming, but this cannot lift the overall score without evidence of actual definitions. The contract-based tool loading pattern (JSON contracts) is architecturally sound, but the actual tool quality depends entirely on the contents of those contract files, which are not provided for review.

• Provide complete tool definitions with descriptions (50-200 characters each) for all 27 tools. Currently, only factory_get_default_address is partially visible.
• Add descriptions to all input parameters. For example, factory_get_default_address's 'chainId' parameter needs a description explaining valid chain IDs, format, and constraints.
• Document output schemas for all tools. Specify which fields are returned, their types, and which fields are useful for downstream tool calls (e.g., addresses, session IDs, nonces).
• Split tools that combine multiple responsibilities. Examples: agent_build_fund_and_action_plan should be build_fund_plan + build_action_plan; vault_execute_asset_transfer_from_context should be separate from vault_execute_asset_transfer.
• Clarify the distinction between '_from_context' variants. Explicitly document what 'context' means (e.g., 'Uses previously stored context from agent_account_context_create') and when to use each variant.
• For irreversible operations (vault_execute_asset_transfer*), add a dry-run variant or require a preceding confirmation step. Implement a 'prepare' pattern: prepare() returns a summary, then execute() applies it.
• Add error handling guidance. For tools that query state (vault_check_nonce_used, mandate_check_revoked), document what to do if the state is not found or is inconsistent.
• Ensure all parameter constraints are documented: numeric ranges, enum values, string formats (regex, length limits), and required vs. optional fields. Do not rely on JSON Schema alone, LLMs read descriptions.

Inferred effective spec: 2025-06-18+.

• Relies on Logging (deprecated) - log to stderr or use OpenTelemetry