bridge_get_token_pairs

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scale (300+ pairs, 25+ chains) but does not mention behaviors such as pagination, data freshness, filtering semantics, or whether the returned list is complete. For a read-only listing tool, this is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 with zero wasted words. It immediately conveys the core function and a key data point, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool is simple (no required parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), and the description provides the essential purpose and scale. However, in the absence of any annotations or output schema, the description could offer more context about return values or typical use cases, though the minimal design keeps it adequate.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions ('Filter by destination chain type', 'Filter by source chain type'). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Get all available cross-chain token pairs' with a specific verb and resource, and provides scale context ('300+ pairs across 25+ chains'). It is distinct from most sibling tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the closely named 'bridge_get_token_pairs_hash'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bridge_get_token_pairs_hash or xflows_get_supported_tokens. The description simply states what it does without explaining typical usage scenarios or when filtering by fromChain/toChain would be appropriate.

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