Retrieve a user's cross-chain bridge order history with session-key authentication to track past transfers, statuses, and records.
Get bridge order history for a user. Requires session-key auth.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Encrypted session key | |
| userId | No | Control wallet address | |
| accountRef | No | Connected account from gdex_connect. Supplies session key, wallet address, API key and session data so no secret is passed in chat |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.12.0Input schema / properties / accountRefAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Connected account from gdex_connect. Supplies session key, wallet address, API key and session data so no secret is passed in chat",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "userId",
- "data"
-]v4.11.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds one useful fact — session-key auth is required — but says nothing about result scope, ordering, or pagination for a history endpoint.
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 the purpose and followed by the auth constraint. Nothing is padded, though the content is thin rather than tight.
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?
All parameters are optional yet the description doesn't explain what happens when userId/accountRef/data are omitted, nor how the accountRef bundle relates to the other two. With no output schema and a confusing sibling name, that omission leaves real ambiguity, though the full schema coverage keeps it adequate.
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% and all three parameters are documented in-schema (data as encrypted session key, userId as control wallet address, accountRef as the gdex_connect-supplied bundle). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 verb and resource are clear ('Get bridge order history'), but the tool is nearly indistinguishable from the sibling 'usdc_get_bridge_orders', and the description never explains the difference. An agent reading only this line cannot confidently choose between the two.
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?
It states a prerequisite ('Requires session-key auth') but gives no when-to-use guidance and no comparison to the near-identical 'usdc_get_bridge_orders' or to 'usdc_get_bridge_status'. The only routing signal is an auth requirement, not a task condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.