Robyn — Gasless Cross-Chain for AI Agents

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

Given no annotations, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the read-only nature, the absence of a signer key, and that it returns a preview. This is transparent but could be slightly more detailed about side effects (e.g., no state changes).

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clear caveat and alternative. Every sentence adds value; 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?

Covers purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral traits adequately for a preview tool. However, missing parameter descriptions and no output schema means an agent may still be uncertain about how to invoke it correctly (e.g., formatting of amounts).

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 50%, and the description does not supplement parameter meanings. It provides no additional context for parameters like the fact that `fromChain` and `toChain` can be numbers or strings, or what `toAddress` is used for. The description relies solely on the schema, which has limited descriptions.

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 clearly states it is a gasless cross-chain move, but immediately clarifies it is read-only (preview), distinguishing the tool's actual function from its name. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like robyn_mesh or robyn_quote, though the read-only nature serves as implicit 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?

Explicitly states when to use (for route preview) and when not to (for actual execution), and provides an alternative: running the anygas-mcp package locally. This is comprehensive guidance that helps an agent decide correctly.

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 compensates by stating that no credentials are required (auth-free behavior) and specifying the output contents (chains, graph, addresses). It does not describe potential side effects or limitations, but for a read-only list tool, this is sufficient. No contradiction with annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that starts with the verb 'List' and conveys all necessary information without superfluous words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 the absence of parameters and output schema, the description fully covers the tool's functionality. It enumerates the items listed (22 EVM nodes, Stellar, relayer/Permit2 addresses) and the condition (no credentials needed), leaving no notable 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?

Input schema has 0 parameters and 100% coverage. As per guidelines, 0 parameters baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info but is not needed since none exist.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resources: gasless chains, cross-chain route graph with 22 EVM nodes + Stellar, and relayer/Permit2 addresses. This differentiates it from sibling tools like robyn_cross_chain (likely for executing transfers) and robyn_quote (for quotes).

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 notes that no credentials are needed, implying the tool is a public read operation. While it does not explicitly state when to use versus siblings, the context from sibling names (cross-chain, quote, route_status) provides implicit guidance. A clear context is given, but exclusions are absent.

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?

Explicitly states 'Read-only — moves nothing,' which is critical behavioral disclosure. Also describes what it returns (estimated output, bridge, duration, fee). No annotations exist, so description carries full burden.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No unnecessary 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?

Covers purpose, read-only nature, and return values. With 6 parameters and no output schema, description provides adequate context. Could mention optional 'toAddress' parameter but not critical for quoting.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage. Description adds examples (e.g., amount in base units, '0x0000…0000 for native') beyond schema, but does not detail all parameters.

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?

Title and description clearly state it's for quoting a gasless cross-chain route. Description mentions specific return values (estimated output, bridge, duration, fee) and distinguishes from sibling tools like robyn_cross_chain (likely execution) and robyn_route_status.

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?

Description indicates it's a read-only operation for quoting, implying use before execution. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives like robyn_cross_chain for execution.

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 bears full responsibility. It discloses the status transition (BRIDGING → DONE) and inclusion of destination tx, which is helpful. However, it omits details like error responses, polling behavior, or idempotency, leaving gaps for an agent.

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, efficient sentence with key information front-loaded (status, ID, state progression, destination tx). 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 simple one-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and output. Minor gaps include unspecified possible statuses beyond the two mentioned and no hints about failure modes or ID format.

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 only parameter 'id' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds value by clarifying that 'id' identifies the route and is used to query its status, thus meaningfully supplementing the bare 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 clearly states the tool checks the status of an in-flight route by ID, with progression from BRIDGING to DONE and includes the destination transaction when delivered. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it effectively from siblings like robyn_cross_chain or robyn_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?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It only implies usage when a route ID is known.

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