usdc_get_bridge_orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating that this returns history—it does not disclose authentication expectations, rate limits, or what the history includes. With annotations present, it fails to add meaningful value.

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 a four-word fragment, which is under-specified for a tool with four parameters rather than appropriately concise. It is not front-loaded with action or scope information. The brevity reflects missing content, not efficient structure.

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?

Given the tool's read-only retrieval role, lack of output schema, and many sibling bridge/order tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what bridge orders are returned, how they relate to get_bridge_orders, or when to use it. An agent would need to infer nearly everything from the name and schema.

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%, so all four parameters (apiKey, accountRef, walletAddress, sessionPrivateKey) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline score of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'The user's USDC bridge history' is effectively a noun-phrase restatement of the tool name usdc_get_bridge_orders. It does not state a verb or action and does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as get_bridge_orders or usdc_get_bridge_status. This qualifies as a tautology rather than a clear purpose statement.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention get_bridge_orders, usdc_get_bridge_status, or any other sibling, nor does it state prerequisites or context for invocation. The description provides none of the usage routing an agent needs.

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