Blackpool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful fact — the data is all public on-chain data, implying no auth or private state — but says nothing about response shape or whether the analytics are aggregated versus raw.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the most distinctive element (shielded notes per chain and pool) is front-loaded. It reads as a fragment rather than a complete statement, which slightly undercuts clarity.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it only sketches three data categories without structure or granularity. For a zero-param analytics endpoint that is adequate but leaves the agent unsure of the payload.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema; baseline 4 applies. The description does not introduce phantom parameters, which is correct.

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 is a noun phrase listing data categories (shielded notes per chain and pool, recent shields, relayer fees) rather than a verb+resource statement, so the agent must infer the action. It conveys the resource but does not distinguish this from the sibling blackpool_fees, which likely also covers relayer fees.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus blackpool_fees, blackpool_status, or blackpool_assets, all of which plausibly overlap. No preconditions or exclusions are stated; the agent must guess from the name alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them: no statement of what data is returned, whether the result is static reference data or reflects live chain state, or what 'valid origins' means in practice. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes no 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?

It is a single short phrase with no padding, so nothing is wasted. However, it is concise to the point of being an incomplete sentence rather than a front-loaded explanation, so brevity costs clarity here.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations already covering the safety profile, the description is the only source of meaning about what this tool returns. It does not say whether the response is a list of bridgeable asset pairs, a mapping of origins per asset, or something else, leaving the tool's output shape entirely unknown.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the description has no parameter semantics to explain, so the baseline of 4 applies. The mention of 'destination assets' and 'origins' hints at what the invisible output is keyed on, but no parameters exist to clarify.

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 'Bridge destination assets and valid origins' is a noun-phrase fragment that restates the title without a clear verb or object. It never says whether the tool lists bridgeable assets, returns supported origin/destination pairs, or performs a bridge. It also does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling blackpool_bridge_quote.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative, blackpool_bridge_quote, which an agent would need to choose between. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by calling the quote 'indicative' and listing supported origin pools. It does not disclose quote freshness, expiry, or executability, which are important behavioral details for a bridge quote.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the parameter meanings. Every part earns its place, and the origin-pool list, while long, is directly useful. There is no redundant or filler wording.

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 read-only quote tool with no output schema, the description should ideally say more about amount units and what the quote response contains. It covers origin and destination adequately but leaves amount semantics and return expectations implicit. The definition is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines from as the origin pool with an explicit list of values and to as the destination asset with a reference to blackpool_assets. However, amount is left to the schema pattern only; its units, token decimals, and expected format are not explained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Indicative quote for a private bridge.' It also clarifies the roles of from and to, making the tool distinguishable from sibling tools such as blackpool_assets. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from all siblings, but the core purpose is clear.

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 implies usage by explaining from/to, and it points to blackpool_assets for destination assets. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it or that it only returns a quote rather than executing a bridge.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scope claim "every pool," but says nothing about data freshness, caching, or whether fees are static protocol values versus live-quoted ones.

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?

A single verb-less fragment that names the four values first and the scope last, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the job of conveying the return payload, and it does so by listing the four fields and the per-pool keying. Only freshness/caching semantics and any pagination or size caveat for "every pool" are left unstated.

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?

The tool takes no parameters (0 required, 100% trivial coverage), which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly does not waste words on absent inputs.

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?

"Flat fee, rate, minimum deposit and minimum spend for every pool" enumerates the exact data points returned and the scope (every pool), so the agent knows precisely what resource this exposes. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like blackpool_guide or blackpool_bridge_quote, which prevents a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no exclusion of alternatives, so guidance is only implied by the purpose statement. For a zero-parameter data lookup the implied usage is fairly unambiguous, but the agent must infer that bridge quotes and general guidance live in the sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds that the content is AGENTS.md documenting private payments via CLI or MCP server, which is useful framing, but it does not say what is returned when no section is supplied (full document? index?) or how an invalid section name is handled.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the subject matter is front-loaded in the 'AGENTS.md:' lead. The colon-style opening is slightly terse but reads cleanly and the parameter example follows immediately.

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 single-parameter read-only doc lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what the tool returns and how to target a section. It should still state the no-argument fallback behavior and roughly what the returned content looks like (markdown text) to be fully self-sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning — and it does, explaining that 'section' is optional and accepting either a number or a title, with concrete examples ('4', 'Recipes'). The only gap is the undisclosed default behavior when the parameter is omitted.

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 identifies the resource (AGENTS.md guidance on making private payments via the Blackpool CLI or local MCP server) and implies retrieval, which distinguishes it from the analytics/assets/fees/status siblings. The retrieval verb itself is only implicit — it never literally says 'returns' or 'reads' a section — but an agent can still infer the tool's function.

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?

Usage is implied: consult this when you need to learn how to make private payments. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over other tools, no mention of calling it before other operations, and no exclusion guidance. Adequate but inferential.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's only added value is enumerating the returned content, since no output schema exists, but it says nothing about freshness, caching, or whether unconfigured chains are omitted.

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?

A single short clause with zero filler, front-loading the most important element (relayer API health) ahead of the secondary data (pools, gas). Nothing is redundant.

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 no-parameter, read-only status tool with full annotation coverage, this is close to sufficient: annotations carry the safety profile and there is no input to document. The remaining gap is the absence of an output schema combined with a very terse return description, so the agent knows the categories but not their shape.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a global, unfiltered snapshot with nothing to configure, which matches the empty input 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 names the concrete payload: relayer API health, configured pools, and per-chain relayer gas. That is specific enough to distinguish a status/diagnostics tool from blackpool_analytics or blackpool_fees, though it is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement of the operation.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to any sibling tool. An agent can infer this is a health/diagnostics call, but nothing states that it should be preferred over blackpool_analytics when checking relayer state.

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