Barker's cross-chain route availability for a stablecoin from a given chain (bridge/venue coverage). Use for 'bridge USDC from arbitrum', '跨链路径'. (paid: $0.01 per call via x402)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | No | Stablecoin symbol (lowercase) | |
| from_chain | No | Origin chain (lowercase) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the paid cost ($0.01 per call via x402), which is valuable. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, the nature of the returned data, or any side effects. The word 'availability' implies a lookup, but more detail would improve transparency.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and scope, followed by concrete usage examples and cost. Every element adds value without redundancy.
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 two-parameter, read-oriented query tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and cost. It does not detail the return format, but 'availability' and 'coverage' sufficiently indicate the expected output for basic invocation.
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% (both 'symbol' and 'from_chain' have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema's 'lowercase' hints and the example 'arbitrum', so it does not exceed the baseline.
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 provides cross-chain route availability for a stablecoin from a given chain, with the example 'bridge USDC from arbitrum' making its purpose concrete. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like barker_defi_vaults and barker_market_overview by focusing specifically on bridge/venue coverage.
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?
Explicit usage guidance is provided via 'Use for...' with practical examples. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of cross-chain routing relative to siblings makes when-to-use clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: yield recommendation, pool listing, execution discovery, quoting, detail/history, market data, cross-chain routes, and position monitoring. No two tools overlap in functionality.
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'barker_<domain>_<action>' using snake_case. The naming is descriptive and predictable, making it easy for an agent to understand the purpose of each tool.
With 11 tools, the server covers the entire stablecoin yield workflow without being bloated. Each tool contributes to discovery, execution, monitoring, or market analysis, and none feel superfluous.
The tool set provides end-to-end coverage for stablecoin yield management: from discovery and analysis to execution and position monitoring. Missing features like batch position queries are outside the server's stated scope.
