bridge

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions signing with the owner's key but does not discuss side effects like gas consumption, slippage, or revert behavior. The presence of gas and fee parameters in the schema implies consumption, but the description does not confirm.

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 single, direct sentence with no superfluous words. It efficiently conveys the tool's core function and a key behavioral aspect.

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 complex tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain the return value, error handling, or how LI.FI routing works. However, it gives the essential purpose, making it usable for basic tasks.

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 high (92%), so most parameters are already explained. The description adds value by stating that the signed route uses the owner's key, but it does not delve into each parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the tool's primary action: 'Move value across chains via LI.FI'. It also mentions signing with the owner's key. This distinguishes it from siblings like swap and send, which are likely same-chain operations.

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 description implies usage for cross-chain bridging, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like swap or send. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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