Get a cross-chain bridge quote without executing a transaction. Returns estimated output, provider, and time for source and destination chains.
Get a cross-chain bridge quote without executing. Returns estimated output, provider, and time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | Amount in raw units | |
| toChainId | Yes | Destination chain ID | |
| fromChainId | Yes | Source chain ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.11.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that nothing is executed and names the returned fields (estimated output, provider, time), but omits quote expiry, auth/permission requirements, and failure modes for unsupported routes.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and immediately followed by the return contract. No filler or 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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by summarizing the return values (estimated output, provider, time), and the schema fully documents inputs. It stops just short of covering quote validity/expiry and error conditions an agent would need for reliable use.
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% for all three parameters (amount in raw units, source/destination chain IDs), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 (get) and resource (cross-chain bridge quote) plus a key scope qualifier: 'without executing'. This implicitly separates it from the sibling execute_bridge, so an agent can pick correctly without opening the schema.
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?
'Without executing' hints that this is a read-only preview step before execute_bridge, but no alternative is named and no condition for choosing it (e.g., when a quote is needed vs. placing an order) is stated. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.