Galactic Radar exit check

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a $0.02 USDC x402 payment requirement and a 'data, not advice' disclaimer. It doesn't mention latency, caching, or failure modes when a route is unavailable.

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 payment cost is front-loaded where an agent will see it first, and every clause carries information. The sentence is long and dense, but nothing is wasted.

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 usefully enumerates what the call returns, which is the most important gap to fill. Cost and chain scope are covered; per-chain quote limitations and behavior when no route exists are not, but that is a minor omission for a read-only quote tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds a little by tying position size to the quote and listing the supported chains inline. Most parameter meaning (mint vs 0x contract, default values, ranges) is already handled by the schema, so the added value is modest.

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?

States a specific action (get a live executable sell quote) on a specific resource (a token position) and enumerates the outputs (round-trip loss, price impact, route availability, warnings). It's clear and distinctive, though it never names the sibling tools (e.g., gbridge_quote) it should be distinguished from.

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?

Gives clear trigger context: use before buying or sizing a position, and it names the supported chains. It stops short of stating when-not-to-use or how it differs from gbridge_quote/gbridge_market, so routing between siblings is left partly to inference.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the payload contents but says nothing about data freshness (live vs snapshot), rate limits, or whether the 'largest executable sale' is computed against current liquidity — context that matters for a trading-data read.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that enumerates the three returned data categories without redundancy. The 'Free:' marketing prefix is the only expendable element.

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 and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and largely discharges it by naming the three things returned. It is slightly incomplete on data freshness and on how 'by size' is parameterized or bucketed.

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 to disambiguate; the description correctly frames the result as unfiltered pool-wide data by size. Baseline for a no-parameter tool applies.

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 a specific resource (GBRIDGE pool liquidity) and the concrete outputs: available liquidity, sell quotes by size, and the largest executable sale. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never distinguishes itself from the overlapping siblings gbridge_quote and exit_check.

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 only implied — an agent can infer this is the tool to call before sizing a sale — but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use, and no pointer to gbridge_quote or exit_check as the alternatives for related questions.

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 the tool as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to establish basic safety. It adds useful scope details beyond annotations, notably that quotes are live but limited to $1-$500 and that the tool reports the largest sale that executes now, yet it does not describe freshness guarantees, rate limits, or how warnings are produced.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the free GBRIDGE market identity and then lists output categories. It is appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool, though the colon-separated enumeration is somewhat run-on and could be easier to scan if split by output family.

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?

Given that the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and annotations that already cover safety, the description carries most of the burden for explaining what the agent gets back. It reliably enumerates the relevant market data families and includes warnings and fees, but it leaves the relationship to overlapping sibling tools implicit.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no input semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and nothing in the description creates confusion about 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?

The description names a specific resource, the GBRIDGE market on Solana, and enumerates the data it covers: verified Meteora DAMM v2 pool, price, liquidity, live buy/sell quotes, largest executable sale, fees, token facts, and warnings. It is clear what the tool provides, but it does not explicitly distinguish this aggregate market view from siblings like gbridge_quote, gbridge_liquidity, and gbridge_token_info, which overlap with the listed outputs.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools that provide quotes, liquidity, or token information. The 'Free' label and the breadth of included data imply it is a consolidated market overview, but the agent must infer that from the overlapping output list rather than from any stated usage rule or exclusion.

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 readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the quote is free, it is a single live quote, it expires in ~30 seconds, and the service is non-custodial.

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 tight sentences: the resource and scope come first, then the expiry and non-custody constraint. No filler wording and nothing buried.

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 two-parameter pricing tool this covers cost, time validity, and execution responsibility. Minor gap: with no output schema, it does not hint at what the quote returns (price, route, slippage), though that is not strictly required to call it.

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 100% and both parameters (side enum, usd range) are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates 'buy or sell' and 'USD amount', adding no format or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'one live Jupiter quote to buy or sell GBRIDGE for a USD amount'. The pricing/quoting role is clearly distinct from siblings like gbridge_liquidity or gbridge_token_info, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Execute with your own wallet; Galactic Bridge never trades for you' plus the ~30s expiry makes the intended flow clear: get a price here, execute externally and quickly. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives against gbridge_market are given.

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 readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that results include third-party data (Jupiter verification and organic score) and external links, but says nothing about caching, rate limits, or whether the authority fields can be null.

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 the cost signal front-loaded followed by a scannable field list. The enumeration is dense but every item describes a distinct returned datum, so nothing is wasted.

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 and no output schema, the description carries the whole burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so thoroughly as a field list. Minor gaps remain around nullability and freshness of third-party scores.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 4 applies.

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?

Names the resource (GBRIDGE token) and enumerates the exact facts returned: mint, supply, decimals, authorities, verification score, holders, and explorer links. This implicitly separates it from siblings like gbridge_market and gbridge_liquidity (market/pool data), though it never states that contrast explicitly.

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 'Free:' prefix hints at a cost distinction, but there is no statement of when to call this versus gbridge_market, gbridge_quote, or gbridge_liquidity, and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer the choice purely from the field list.

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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds two genuinely new facts: the call is free and it explains payment flow, which is useful context an annotation cannot convey. It still does not describe response shape or whether authentication is required anywhere, so it is additive but not rich.

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 sentence with the key qualifier ('Free') front-loaded and zero filler. It is slightly under-specified rather than verbose, and the noun-phrase construction without a verb is the only structural weakness.

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 does list three payload topics (return shape, price, payment). That is adequate for a trivial zero-param info tool, but it remains unclear whether the return is prose documentation, a JSON sample, or structured pricing data, which matters for downstream planning.

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 schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a parameterless tool applies, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter talk.

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 a resource (the exit check) and lists three content areas: its return payload, price, and payment mechanics, which does distinguish it from the sibling exit_check. However, there is no verb at all — it never says whether the tool returns documentation, a sample response, or pricing metadata — so an agent must infer that this is an informational endpoint rather than an execution of the check.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance is given. The word 'Free:' hints that this is the no-cost precursor to the paid exit_check, but the description never says to call this before exit_check to learn cost, nor does it rule out any alternative sibling. Usage must be inferred entirely.

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