clawswap_bridge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully describes the tool's automated workflow (handles quoting, payment, signing, and submission) and lists supported tokens, which goes beyond basic functionality. However, it lacks critical behavioral details like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions or authentication are needed, rate limits, or what happens on failure.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the core functionality and automation, while the second provides specific usage context with supported tokens. Every word earns its place with zero 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?

For a complex 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete about what the tool does and its scope. However, it lacks important contextual information about the operation's nature (read vs. write), authentication requirements, error handling, and what the tool returns, which are significant gaps for a tool that presumably performs financial transactions.

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 the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by mentioning specific token symbols (USDC, USDT, SOL, ETH, WETH) which aligns with the schema, and implies the tool handles cross-chain operations, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 purpose with specific verbs (send, transfer, swap, bridge) and resources (tokens between Solana and Base chains). It explicitly distinguishes this comprehensive tool from its sibling 'clawswap_quote' by mentioning it handles quoting, payment, signing, and submission automatically, while 'clawswap_quote' likely only provides quotes.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to move specific tokens between Solana and Base chains) and implies an alternative by mentioning 'clawswap_quote' handles quoting, suggesting that tool might be for quote-only operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or fully differentiate from 'clawswap_status'.

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