cross_chain_transfer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: gas relaying is covered automatically and an idempotency key is recommended to prevent double charges. However, it does not disclose other important behaviors such as whether the operation is irreversible, what happens on success/failure, or whether it requires any authentication. Thus it provides some transparency but not a full picture.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second lists required parameters with a concrete example, and the third highlights the key operational note about gas and idempotency. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no fluff.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and other operational details. It covers the basic invocation requirements and the gas behavior, but does not mention what the response contains (e.g., transaction hash), whether the source chain is inferred, or any fees/limits. It also says 'Always provide an idempotency_key' while the schema marks it optional, which is a minor inconsistency that reduces completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It successfully explains the meaning of most parameters: to_chain with examples, to_token as an address, recipient as wallet address, and idempotency_key for preventing double charges. The only gap is 'amount,' which is not described beyond being required. Overall, it adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Send a cross-chain CCTP payment natively to another blockchain using Squid Router.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'transfer' tool (which likely handles same-chain transfers). It also names the protocol (CCTP) and router (Squid), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 implicitly tells when to use the tool: when a cross-chain CCTP payment is needed, as opposed to the sibling 'transfer' tool. It provides concrete examples for chain identifiers and notes that gas relaying is automatic, which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this instead of transfer' or mention any excluded scenarios, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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