Skip to main content
Glama

preview_bridge_quote

Optional advanced step: fetch a cross-chain bridge quote (Fusion+ or deBridge) and return previewQuoteId. Omit previewQuoteId on propose_bridge to bundle quote+proposal in one call.

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": {
      "fromWalletId": "<fromWalletId>",
      "toWalletId": "<toWalletId>",
      "sellSymbol": "<sellSymbol>",
      "buySymbol": "<buySymbol>",
      "amountUsd": "<amountUsd>"
    },
    "name": "preview_bridge_quote"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
amountUsdYes
buySymbolYes
sellSymbolYes
toWalletIdYes
fromWalletIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. 'Fetch' and 'return previewQuoteId' imply a read-only preview rather than execution, but it does not explicitly state that no bridge transaction is submitted, nor does it cover quote expiry, permissions, 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The definition is two tight sentences with no wasted wording. The optional-preview framing is front-loaded, followed by the actionable bundling alternative.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a cross-chain quote tool with five required financial parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It covers the high-level purpose and output ID but omits parameter semantics, quote validity, supported chains, and operational constraints.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema has five required parameters and 0% description coverage, but the description does not explain fromWalletId, toWalletId, sellSymbol, buySymbol, or amountUsd. It mentions only the returned previewQuoteId and a propose_bridge field, so the input parameter meanings remain largely undocumented.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: fetch a cross-chain bridge quote via Fusion+ or deBridge and return previewQuoteId. It also distinguishes this optional preview step from propose_bridge by explaining the bundling alternative.

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?

It explicitly frames this as an optional advanced step and gives a concrete alternative: omit previewQuoteId on propose_bridge to bundle quote and proposal. It does not fully explain when a standalone quote is preferable or what prerequisites apply.

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