bitflow_get_routes

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it delivers several genuinely useful traits: no API key needed, public endpoints with a 500 req/min rate limit, and mainnet-only availability. It omits whether results are ordered by best output, whether fees/gas are included per route, and the response shape.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by tightly packed constraints (multi-hop, no key, rate limit, mainnet). The trailing 'Tip' about earning_opportunities is off-topic filler for a routing tool, which is the only waste.

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 simple two-parameter read tool this covers access constraints and network scope, which is most of what matters. However, with no output schema the description should say what a 'route' contains (hops, pool, expected output, fee) and whether results are ranked, since an agent planning a swap needs that to act on the result.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters already carry examples ('token-stx', 'token-aeusdc'). The description only restates the directionality ('from tokenX to tokenY'), adding essentially nothing beyond what the schema documents, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get all possible swap routes between two tokens on Bitflow') and clarifies scope by stating that multi-hop routes through intermediate tokens are included. That distinguishes it in spirit from single-quote tools like bitflow_get_quote, but it never names a sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to the obvious alternatives (bitflow_get_quote, bitflow_get_swap_targets, bitflow_swap, alex_get_swap_quote). The closing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities' is an unrelated cross-sell, not routing advice, so the agent gets no help deciding between route discovery and quoting.

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