bridge_create_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: the tool returns transaction data for wallet signing, not actually executing the bridge. However, it omits details about fees, prerequisites, or side effects, which are relevant for a creation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the return value. Every word contributes value; there is no redundancy.

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?

The absence of an output schema places importance on describing the return value, which it does at a high level ('transaction data ready for wallet signing'). However, for a complex tool with 8 parameters and no workflow context, it lacks depth about prerequisites or integration with other bridge steps.

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% with all 8 parameters documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics 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 it creates a cross-chain bridge transaction using WanBridge API and returns transaction data for wallet signing. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling bridge tools like bridge_get_quota_and_fee or bridge_check_status.

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 gives a clear context (WanBridge API) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not differentiate from similar tools like xflows_build_transaction, leaving decision-making to the agent.

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