TrollBridge MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses a $0.005 USDC per-call toll via x402, the 6-hour refresh cycle, and the failure mode where a non-paying caller receives 402 payment instructions instead of data. It does not describe result shape or pagination beyond the limit, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences with no redundancy; the resource and sources lead, the cost and failure behavior follow. Minor branding/editorial phrases ('Mini's TrollBridge', 'worth an agent's time') add flavor without adding operational 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?

For a single-optional-parameter aggregator with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers sources, freshness, cost, and the payment-failure path — the essentials an agent needs before calling. It omits nothing critical, though return field shape 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single optional parameter already documents its 1-200 range and default of 50. The description's 'Optional limit 1-200' merely restates the schema, so the baseline of 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 resource and scope: all open bounties aggregated from named sources (aibtc, Taskmarket, Superteam), with a stated refresh cadence. An agent can tell it apart from bridge_deadlines or bridge_sweepstakes by the 'bounties' framing, but no sibling is named explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 choose this over the 17 sibling bridge_* tools — nothing like 'use this instead of bridge_opportunities when you want paid bounty work.' The payment condition describes what happens at call time, not when the tool is the right selection.

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, and it does disclose real behavior: a $0.005 USDC toll via x402 and, critically, that the tool returns 402 payment instructions instead of data when payment fails. It stops short of describing return shape, freshness, or rate limits beyond price.

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?

Three tight, front-loaded sentences: identity/purpose first, cost second, fallback third. The 'Mini's TrollBridge' branding is slight fluff but functions as identity, and 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 one-optional-param list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the key unknowns — cost and the 402 failure path — are covered. Only the returned record shape and data freshness are unaddressed, which is a minor gap given the purpose sentence already sketches 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single optional limit parameter (range and default already documented). The description only restates 'limit 1-200', adding no pagination or ordering semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 resource (upcoming class-action and claim deadlines) with a clarifying gloss ('money with an expiry date'), so an agent immediately knows it returns dated monetary claims. It does not name or contrast any sibling (bridge_bounties, bridge_sweepstakes), so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 never says when to use this over the many adjacent tools (bridge_bounties, bridge_sweepstakes, bridge_opportunities). The only conditional it gives is the payment fallback, which is a failure mode rather than usage guidance.

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 and does well: it discloses the toll ($0.05 USDC via x402) and the exact behavior on payment failure (returns 402 payment instructions instead of data). It still omits auth prerequisites beyond payment, rate limits, and the latency/data-freshness 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?

Compact and front-loaded: identity and payload first, then the toll and its failure mode, then the parameter note. Every clause carries information, though the branding prefix 'Mini's TrollBridge' is expendable.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the payment and failure behavior is well covered, but a critical gap remains: nothing explains what wallet(s) get enriched when the only input is `limit`, nor what the returned fields mean in practice.

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 the single `limit` parameter is fully documented in the schema, including default 50. The description's 'Optional limit 1-200' merely restates that, adding no semantics the schema lacks.

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 resource precisely — wallet intel covering type, balances, and risk flags — so an agent knows what data it yields. It does not, however, differentiate itself from related siblings such as bridge_token_check, and the 'enrich' verb is never explained (enrich what, from which wallet?).

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 choose this over bridge_token_check or the other seventeen bridge_* siblings. The only conditional given is a payment fallback ('if you cannot pay...'), which is a transactional caveat rather than usage guidance.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses a paid operation ($0.005 USDC via x402) and the exact failure behavior (returns 402 payment instructions instead of data). It does not describe return shape or whether payment is per-call or per-batch, so not quite a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the scope before the payment caveat. The 'Mini's TrollBridge' branding is slightly throwaway but costs almost nothing.

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 one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers scope, cost, payment-failure path, and limit. The only real gap is what a returned bounty entry contains, which a listing tool's caller might want.

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 100% and the single optional limit already documents range and default (1-200, default 50), so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Optional limit 1-200' restates the schema rather than adding anything new.

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 the resource (bounties) and a precise scope (posted in the last 24 hours), which differentiates it from the sibling bridge_bounties. It never names that sibling directly, but the temporal qualifier is specific enough that an agent can distinguish the two.

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 'last 24 hours' but there is no explicit when-to-use versus bridge_bounties, and no statement about when a wider window is preferable. The 402 fallback note does tell the agent what happens on non-payment, which is genuine guidance.

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 and does well: it names the exact cost ($0.005 USDC per call), the payment protocol (x402), and the failure mode (returns 402 payment instructions instead of data). It omits return format and rate-limit behavior beyond per-call cost, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before cost and fallback details. The 'Mini's TrollBridge' branding is minor filler but nothing bloats the definition.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, it covers purpose, cost, and failure behavior adequately. Return format and pagination are left implicit, but the essential info needed to call it correctly is present.

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 100%, so the limit parameter, its range 1-200, and default 50 are already documented in the schema. The description only restates 'Optional limit 1-200' with no added meaning, 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?

The description states a specific resource and scope: 'live gas prices per chain', which is enough to distinguish it from generic price data among the bridge_* siblings. It does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer for a related need, so it stops short of 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?

It discloses a real prerequisite (payment via x402) and the fallback when payment is unavailable, which is genuinely useful context. However it never says when to choose this over bridge_prices or other siblings, nor any exclusions, so usage is only implied.

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. It usefully discloses the cost profile ('FREE', 'No toll') and roughly what the response reports, which is real behavioral value. But it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, latency, or failure modes, and the metaphorical phrasing leaves the actual behavior under-specified.

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 front-loaded sentence with the function stated first. It is tight, though branding ('Mini's TrollBridge') and metaphoric terms ('lanes', 'toll') consume space without adding precision.

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-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately conveys what it returns and that it is free. The main missing piece is any usage routing relative to the many sibling tools, but the core completeness for calling it correctly is present.

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. There are no arguments whose semantics could be clarified, and the description does not need to compensate for any gaps.

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+resource ('health check' for 'the bridge') and enumerates what the check reports: awake status, lane count, marketplace status. This distinguishes it from data-oriented siblings like bridge_prices or bridge_markets. However, playful terminology ('Mini's TrollBridge', 'lanes', 'toll') is ambiguous and could confuse an agent about what the fields actually mean.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The 'FREE / No toll' note hints at a cost dimension versus other tools but never states when an agent should call this versus, say, bridge_tools or bridge_fresh. 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.

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 the two things an agent most needs: a per-call toll of $0.05 USDC via x402, and the failure mode where an unpaid call returns 402 payment instructions rather than data. It omits freshness guarantees, rate limits, and return shape, but the cost and error-path disclosure is substantive.

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?

Three short fragments, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by the cost and failure behavior. The 'Mini's TrollBridge' branding is minor filler but does serve as a service identifier; otherwise 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?

For a one-optional-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what data comes back, what it costs, and what happens when payment fails. It lacks any indication of response shape, pagination, or data latency, which keeps it short of complete.

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 the schema already documents 'limit' with its 1-200 bounds and a default of 50. The description's 'Optional limit 1-200' adds nothing beyond the schema, so 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 resource (live Polymarket odds, prices, volume) with a clear identity ('Mini's TrollBridge'), which separates it from siblings like bridge_prices, bridge_models, or bridge_yields. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it falls short of the 5 bar for sibling differentiation.

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 explains the payment model but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as bridge_prices or bridge_opportunities. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria beyond the implicit 'you want Polymarket data' reading.

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 behavioral burden and does well: it discloses a mandatory $0.02 USDC cost via x402 and, crucially, the failure mode (returns 402 payment instructions instead of data). It omits return shape, pagination behavior, and any rate limits beyond per-call payment.

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?

Front-loaded with the catalog purpose, then the toll and failure mode — the information an agent most needs to decide. Dense but every clause carries signal; 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 no-annotation, no-output-schema catalog tool, the description covers identity, scope, cost, and the payment-failure path. The main residual gap is return format, but a model catalog returning a model list is a reasonable expectation.

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 100% and the single limit parameter is fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description merely restates 'Optional limit 1-200,' adding nothing beyond the schema's own bounds and default.

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 a concrete resource (AI model catalog) with useful scope detail: 100+ models and per-token pricing. It is distinguishable from siblings like bridge_prices or bridge_tools by resource, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with any of them.

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 catalog framing and the payment note, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the 17 sibling tools. An agent must infer that this is the tool for browsing models rather than pricing or markets.

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 and does so well: it discloses the paid model ($0.05 USDC per call via x402) and, importantly, the failure mode — a 402 payment-instruction response instead of data when payment is unavailable. That is exactly the kind of behavioral trait an agent needs before invoking. It stops short of describing return structure or rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by the payment model and parameter note. Three short sentences with little waste, though the trailing 'Optional limit 1-200' duplicates the schema and could be dropped.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, cost, and the payment-failure path, which is what an agent needs to decide and invoke. It would be stronger with a note on result ordering or freshness window, but nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'limit' parameter with its 1-200 range and default of 50. The description's 'Optional limit 1-200' merely repeats that, adding no syntax or semantic detail beyond the structured field.

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 resource and scope: 'newest token listings with rug scores,' which tells an agent this returns fresh token pairs enriched with a risk metric. It does not, however, differentiate itself from plausible siblings like bridge_fresh or bridge_token_check, so an agent must infer which 'newest listings' tool to pick.

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 gives an implicit usage condition (you must be able to pay $0.05 USDC via x402), but offers no guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools such as bridge_fresh or bridge_token_check. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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 and it discloses critical behavioral traits: the toll cost ($0.02 USDC per call), the payment mechanism (x402), and the exact failure mode (returns 402 payment instructions instead of data when unpaid). That is unusually rich for a paid tool. It stops short of describing return fields or rate limits.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource identity, then the toll, then the failure behavior. No wasted words.

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 optional param tool with no output schema, the description covers identity, payment gating, and failure mode — the key things an agent needs. It lacks any differentiation from the 17 sibling bridge_* tools and doesn't hint at what 'normalized schema' returns, but is otherwise complete.

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 the single parameter 'limit' is fully documented with range and default in the schema. The description only repeats 'limit 1-200', adding nothing beyond the schema, so 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 resource — paying opportunities in a normalized schema — which is clearer than most siblings (bounties, deadlines, yields, etc.). It doesn't explicitly contrast against those siblings, so an agent can't easily tell whether a bounty or yield opportunity lives here or in bridge_bounties/bridge_yields.

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 x402 payment prerequisite is stated, which is real usage guidance, but there is no when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no differentiation from the many sibling 'bridge_*' opportunity tools. An agent must infer which sibling to call.

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?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the monetary cost per call, the x402 payment mechanism, and the fallback that a non-payer receives 402 payment instructions instead of data. It omits rate limits, caching, and return format, but the payment/failure behavior is genuinely useful context most definitions never provide.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then cost, then failure mode, then the parameter — a sensible order with little waste. The trailing 'Optional limit 1-200' duplicates the schema and is the only sentence that doesn't fully 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does name the covered assets and the momentum verdict, though it doesn't describe the response shape. Combined with the cost/failure disclosure, it is complete enough for a single-parameter price 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% and the single optional 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including range and default. The description's 'Optional limit 1-200' only restates the schema, adding no new semantics, 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+resource (spot crypto prices) and names the exact assets covered (BTC, ETH, SOL, USDC) plus the momentum verdict output. An agent can distinguish this from bridge_markets, bridge_gas, or bridge_token_check by scope without opening a schema.

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 the critical precondition: it is tolled at $0.005 USDC per call via x402, and if payment is impossible the tool returns 402 instructions rather than data. This is clear usage context, but no alternatives are named (e.g. when to prefer bridge_markets for broader coverage), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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 and does well: it discloses the metered cost ($0.05 USDC via x402) and the concrete failure mode (returns 402 payment instructions instead of data). It does not mention rate limits, result freshness, or whether it is a safe read-only call, leaving minor gaps.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the function and cost, with no wasted clauses. The 'Mini's TrollBridge' branding is mildly decorative but not harmful.

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-annotation, no-output-schema search tool the description covers purpose, cost, payment protocol, failure behavior, and the sole parameter. It omits what corpus is searched and pagination/return-shape detail, but is largely sufficient to invoke correctly.

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 100% and the single 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description only restates 'Optional limit 1-200' without adding format or behavior beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('web search returning agent-ready JSON') and brands the service, so the core function is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like bridge_fresh or bridge_enrich, which may also surface web content, so it stops short of 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 guidance on when to pick this over the other 17 bridge_* tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only conditional statement concerns payment failure, which is a behavioral trait rather than usage direction.

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 burden and does disclose a real behavioral trait: a per-call x402 payment of $0.02 USDC and the specific failure mode (returns 402 payment instructions instead of data). That is exactly the kind of cost/auth context an agent needs before calling. It stops short of describing rate limits or response shape.

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?

Three short sentences; the payment requirement and the 402 fallback are front-loaded where they matter. Minor waste in the promotional 'with real prizes, curated by Mini' phrasing, but nothing is 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 simple single-parameter list tool, the description covers cost and pagination adequately, but with no output schema and no annotations it never indicates what a returned sweepstakes record contains or whether results are paginated beyond the limit.

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% with a single optional limit parameter fully documented, so baseline 3 applies. The description's 'Optional limit 1-200' merely restates the schema bounds and adds no new semantics.

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 ('sweepstakes with real prizes, curated by Mini') but never states the action, e.g. that it returns a list of sweepstakes. It is distinguishable from siblings like bridge_bounties or bridge_yields only by the resource noun, and the marketing framing ('Mini's TrollBridge') does not clarify what the call produces.

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 the seventeen sibling data tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent is left to infer that it fetches sweepstakes listings.

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 and does disclose critical non-obvious behavior: it is a paid tool ($0.05 USDC via x402) and returns 402 payment instructions rather than data when payment fails. This is exactly the kind of behavior an agent must know before calling. Minor gap: no mention of result shape or latency.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then payment terms, then the parameter note. Every sentence carries information (what it scans, cost, failure mode, parameter bound) with no padding.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, and payment-failure behavior sufficiently to call it correctly. The unexplained 0-100 scoring methodology and result contents are the only mild 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 coverage is 100% and the single 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including default 50 and range 1-200. The description merely restates 'Optional limit 1-200', adding no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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+resource ('token rug scan') and enumerates what it evaluates: liquidity, holders, and a 0-100 safety score. An agent can tell it apart from the generic bridge_* siblings, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g. bridge_fresh, bridge_new_pairs, bridge_search). The only conditional guidance is payment-related ('If you cannot pay... returns 402'), not task-selection guidance.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the free/no-toll model and that listed tools may be pay-per-use, but it does not state authentication needs, read-only status, side effects, rate limits, or return behavior.

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 definition is a single sentence and appropriately sized for a no-param directory tool. However, 'FREE' and 'No toll' are somewhat redundant, and the brand prefix 'Mini's TrollBridge' is less informative than the actual tool purpose.

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 simple, no-parameter, read-only-style directory tool, the description covers the basic domain. Without an output schema, though, it should say more about what the tool returns, such as whether it lists all tools, supports pagination, or includes sorting/filtering behavior.

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 input parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for undocumented arguments.

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 a specific resource: a directory of third-party AI tools on the TrollBridge marketplace. It distinguishes itself from most bridge_* siblings, which cover other domains such as prices, markets, and bounties, but it does not use an explicit operation verb like 'list' or 'retrieve'.

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 instead of siblings such as bridge_search, bridge_fresh, or bridge_models. The marketplace/payment context hints at its role, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use condition is provided.

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. It does add real behavioral context: the service is free and 'traffic is small and growing' with 'exactly what the bridge has seen, nothing more', which usefully warns the agent that results may be sparse and unembellished. However it says nothing about auth requirements, call cost/latency, or failure behavior, 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?

The metric list is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good, but the passage is padded with branding ('Mini's TrollBridge', 'Honest day-one ledger') and idiosyncratic terms that spend words without adding usable meaning. Every sentence does carry some signal, so it is adequate rather than wasteful.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is the only place the returned fields can be described, and it does list them (toll challenges, paid crossings, unique wallets, first/last seen). The main residual gap is that it never sketches the output shape or units, so an agent still doesn't know how these metrics are packaged.

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 schema cannot be misread and there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for 0-param tools is 4. Nothing in the description contradicts or confuses the empty 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?

It names the resource (bridge statistics) and enumerates the specific metrics returned: per-lane toll challenges vs paid crossings, unique payer wallets, first/last seen. This is concrete enough for an agent to know it is a read-only traffic-reporting tool, but the branded jargon ('lookers', 'agents through', 'TrollBridge') requires interpretation and it never distinguishes itself from siblings like bridge_health or bridge_fresh.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the 17 sibling bridge_* tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites. 'FREE' hints at cost but conveys no selection guidance. An agent has to infer that this is the traffic-metrics endpoint on its own.

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?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: a paid toll, the exact cost and mechanism (x402), and the failure mode of returning 402 payment instructions instead of data. It omits rate limits, caching/recency window, and response shape, but the payment gate and its fallback are unusually well disclosed.

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, front-loaded with the tool's identity and payload before the payment caveat and the parameter note. No filler, though the trailing limit clause is redundant with the schema.

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 1-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource, the toll, the unpaid fallback, and the only parameter. Missing only minor items like pagination ordering or how 'recently-paid' is windowed.

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 100% and the single limit parameter is fully documented in the schema (bounds and default 50). The description only restates 'Optional limit 1-200' without adding format or behavior detail, so 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 resource and outcome: 'recently-paid bounties: which bounties actually paid out and how much.' An agent can distinguish this (paid verdicts) from open-listing siblings like bridge_bounties. It stops short of naming the sibling it complements, so no explicit differentiation is provided.

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?

Implies usage context via 'recently-paid' and details the payment prerequisite ('$0.02 USDC per call via x402'), but never states when to pick this over bridge_bounties or other sibling bounty tools. The agent must infer the selection condition.

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, and it does add real behavioral value: a $0.05 USDC x402 toll and the fact that non-payers receive 402 payment instructions instead of data. However, it omits return format, rate limits, and what 'yields' actually contains, so it is only partially transparent for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short and front-loads the identity and the toll, which are the two things an agent most needs. The 'Mini's TrollBridge' branding is minor noise but costs little.

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-optional-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the payment behavior adequately but leaves the actual yield payload format and any rate/result limits unexplained. It is minimally sufficient rather than complete.

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 100% and the limit parameter is fully documented there, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description merely restates 'Optional limit 1-200' without adding format or behavioral meaning, 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?

The description names the resource ('best DeFi yields right now') but supplies no verb and does nothing to distinguish it from close siblings like bridge_markets, bridge_opportunities, or bridge_fresh. An agent cannot tell from this text alone why it should pick bridge_yields over those.

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?

It states the payment precondition and the failure path (returns 402 instructions if you can't pay), which is useful context, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other bridge_* siblings, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the toll.

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