Skip to main content
Glama

Across bridge limits for USDC between two chains

agent_intel_cross_chain_bridge_liquidity
Read-only

Across bridge limits for USDC between two chains: the largest instant-fill amount the bridge can take right now, the largest deposit it accepts, and the smallest deposit. Across only (not Stargate, Hop or CCTP), USDC only, and the chain pair must be one the Across limits API accepts. Related tools on this server, for a different need: agent_intel_dnssec_trust_chain_validator when you need DNSSEC status for a domain using Cloudflare's public; agent_intel_liquidity_lock_inspector when you need share of a token's LP tokens that are burned or locked. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "from": "<from>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "agent_intel_cross_chain_bridge_liquidity"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesDestination chain id, same list as from
fromYesOrigin chain id: 1 (Ethereum), 10 (Optimism), 137 (Polygon), 8453 (Base) or 42161 (Arbitrum)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNo
fromNo
noteNo
tokenNo
sourceNo
checkedAtNo
maxDepositUsdNo
minDepositUsdNo
recommendedInstantUsdNo
instantFillCapacityUsdNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the values are live ('right now'), the call costs $0.002 in USDC via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, and failed calls are not charged — pricing and billing behavior an agent cannot infer from annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Core content is front-loaded and well ordered: capability, then exclusions, then pricing. But the middle sentence promoting dnssec_trust_chain_validator and liquidity_lock_inspector is filler for this tool's decision and inflates the definition without aiding selection.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, this covers the essentials: what is measured, which chains/asset, which competing bridges are excluded, and the cost model. The only shortfall is that it never explains how to interpret the limits (e.g. what 'instant-fill' means for a deposit) or what happens on an unsupported pair besides not being charged.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the from parameter already documents the accepted chain ids (1, 10, 137, 8453, 42161). The description only restates that the chain pair must be one the Across limits API accepts, adding no syntax, format or edge-case meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource (Across bridge limits for USDC between two chains) and enumerates exactly what is returned: largest instant-fill amount, largest deposit accepted, smallest deposit. The scope qualifiers (Across only, USDC only) let an agent separate it from other bridge/slippage tools without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly rules out alternatives by name (not Stargate, Hop or CCTP) and constrains the chain pair to those the Across limits API accepts, which is genuine when-not-to-use guidance. However, the two 'related tools' it cites (dnssec_trust_chain_validator, liquidity_lock_inspector) address unrelated needs, so it does not help route between the plausibly competing cross-chain tools on this server.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources