Bridges by TVL

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds the ranking criterion and the DefiLlama categorization, which is useful, but says nothing about the limit parameter's effect, defaults, or result size.

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 that states resource, ranking, source, and the optional filter with zero 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 simple read-only ranked-list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the optional filter. Only the limit parameter's behavior is missing, a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It explains the chain filter but ignores the limit parameter entirely (no default, no max, no semantics), leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 and resource ('bridges ranked by TVL') plus the data source (DefiLlama bridge categories). It implicitly separates itself from chains_tvl by saying 'bridges' rather than chains, but never explicitly names the sibling or the boundary.

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?

Only 'optionally filtered by chain' hints at usage; there is no when-to-use, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives like bridge_quotes (quotes) or chains_tvl (chain-level TVL). The agent must infer the routing.

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