bridge_txn

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the 0.1% auto-deducted fee, automatic delivery on AVM destinations, that the transaction is unsigned, and that it returns base64-encoded strings. It stops short of permissions, rate limits, or what happens for non-AVM destinations.

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?

Four tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Slightly dense, but every sentence contributes a distinct fact (fee, delivery, return format, signer).

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 no-output-schema builder tool, the description usefully explains the return value (base64-encoded transaction string[] for wallet signing) and the fee behavior. Only minor gaps remain, such as the non-AVM delivery path and error/misconfiguration handling.

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 five parameters are already documented in the schema, including the human-readable amount format and the chain enum. The description adds only the general token-category note (native tokens and ASAs), which does not extend semantics per-parameter.

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 (Build) and resource (unsigned Aramid Bridge transaction) plus the exact scope: bridging assets between Voi and Algorand. An agent can immediately tell this apart from the sibling get_supported_assets, which only enumerates tokens.

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 bridging use case and the downstream step (signing via UluWalletMCP) are made explicit, so the agent knows where this fits in the workflow. It does not, however, state exclusions or when to prefer another tool for a similar task.

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