Exit Desk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose important traits: non-custodial operation, unsigned steps or deposit address, 60+ chain coverage, and a 0.2% app fee. It omits other operationally relevant details such as quote expiry, auth requirements, rate limits, and whether a deposit address creates persistent state.

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 compact and front-loaded: it leads with what the tool does, then adds chain coverage, return modes, and fee disclosure. Every clause adds useful information and there is no filler.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 33% schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough. It explains return modes and fees but leaves most optional parameters and important quote lifecycle behavior undocumented.

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 low at 33%, so the description should compensate for the six undocumented parameters, but it does not explain chain IDs, refundTo, recipient, destinationCurrency, or amount units. The only indirect parameter relevance is the mention of unsigned steps versus a deposit address, which hints at useDepositAddress without naming or explaining it.

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 action and resource: a live non-custodial bridge/swap quote via Relay. It also clarifies the output modes (unsigned steps or a deposit address), making it clearly distinguishable from the unrelated sibling list tools.

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 by the phrase 'bridge/swap quote,' so an agent can infer this is the tool for obtaining a cross-chain quote. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative for comparison.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does state the shape of the returned record (days left, official exit steps, sources), which is genuine behavioral context. However it never confirms this is a read-only, no-auth lookup, nor how fresh or how paginated the data is, so a caller still has to guess at the operational profile.

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 leading clause 'Crypto shutdown deadlines through early 2027' is well front-loaded and the time bound is valuable. The remaining ~30-brand enumeration is heavier than an agent needs to select the tool and pushes the sentence to an unwieldy length, diluting rather than sharpening the signal.

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 zero-argument, no-output-schema list tool, the description supplies the coverage domains, the time horizon, and the fields returned, which is close to everything needed to invoke it correctly. Only the freshness/update cadence of the deadline data is 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 zero parameters, so parameter semantics default to the baseline of 4. The description correctly implies no filtering input is needed or accepted; there is nothing further to document.

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 concrete verb+resource ('list' shutdown deadlines) and enumerates the exact coverage: chains, exchanges, wallets, stablecoins, DeFi sunsets, bounded through early 2027. It is unambiguous about what the tool returns, though it never differentiates itself from the sibling list_exchange_delistings even though it also covers exchanges (CoinEx, BitMart, Kraken delisting batches), leaving a real overlap unresolved.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance at all. Given a sibling named list_exchange_delistings that this tool's own content overlaps with, the absence of any routing instruction is a notable gap.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but does disclose useful behavior: which sources are polled and that contracts are attached only 'where Relay lists the token'. It is silent on ordering, pagination behavior of limit, freshness window, and error/empty-result handling, so the disclosure is partial.

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 dense sentence with the scope (spot token delistings) and source list front-loaded, and the enrichment caveat appended. No filler and nothing that does not earn its place.

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 low-complexity filtered list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers source and scope but leaves parameter behavior (especially limit and how token/exchange filter) undocumented anywhere in the definition. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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% for three parameters. The description hints at valid exchange values (Binance, KuCoin, OKX) and implies a token filter, but limit is never explained (default, max, behavior when omitted) and the token parameter's matching semantics are left ambiguous.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('list recent spot token delistings') and names the three data sources (Binance, KuCoin, OKX announcement feeds), plus an enrichment detail (on-chain contracts). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_chain_shutdowns, but the resource is concrete enough that an agent can identify it.

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 use this tool versus list_chain_shutdowns or exit_quote, no mention of prerequisites, and no indication of what 'recent' means in practice. The agent must infer usage entirely from the one-line purpose statement.

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