Bridge fee compare

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 and the fact that it hits external sources are covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the quoting sources and the returned fields (amount received, cost, ETA), which tells the agent what it gets back from a live, aggregated call.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and packs in assets, chains, providers, and return fields without filler. Dense but readable; 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 read-only quoting tool with no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return fields and data sources, and annotations cover side effects. However, input amount semantics and any freshness/rate-limit expectations are absent, leaving gaps an agent may need.

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 0%, but the schema's enums for from/to (chains) and asset (USDC/ETH) are self-documenting, and the description restates that domain scope. The 'amount' parameter is never explained (units, token decimals, native vs smallest unit) and the description adds little beyond the schema, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb+resource combination ('Live bridge quotes') with explicit scope: assets (USDC/ETH), supported chains, and providers (Across, LI.FI, Relay). No sibling tool does bridge quoting, so it is unambiguous relative to the surrounding toolset.

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 purpose implies when the tool is relevant (comparing bridge costs), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternatives. For a cost-comparison tool, guidance like 'use before executing a bridge' would have earned a higher mark.

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