get_onto_x1

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'Returns the real bridge deposit address, limits and endpoints', which is a key behavioral trait (it doesn't perform the bridge but returns configuration). It also indicates it is a 'how to' guide, implying no state-changing actions, but doesn't explicitly say it's read-only. Given no annotations, the description does well to convey its advisory nature, though more clarity on side-effects would be ideal.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('How to get onto the X1 chain and fund a wallet'), and immediately provides actionable steps (bridge or faucet) and key outcomes (returns real addresses). It saves the user call to action ('Start here if you have no X1 balance') for the end, which is effective. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is quite complete. It explains the purpose, the methods (bridge/faucet), and what the response includes (deposit address, limits, endpoints). It doesn't detail the exact format of the response, but with no output schema, that might be fine. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating whether any prior setup or prerequisite is needed, but 'from outside' implies external origin. Overall, it's nearly complete for an informational tool.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds context about what information is returned (deposit address, limits, endpoints), which is useful despite no parameters. Since there is nothing to clarify about inputs, a 4 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 purpose: helping users get onto the X1 chain and fund a wallet, with specific actions (bridge from Solana or claim from faucet). It names the specific assets (APEX/XNT) and mentions the return of real deposit addresses and limits, distinguishing it from generic 'start here' tools. The phrase 'Start here if you have no X1 balance' further clarifies its unique role among siblings.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'from outside' and 'Start here if you have no X1 balance', setting clear context. It also mentions alternatives indirectly by describing the bridge and faucet options, and by noting other tools like bridge_assets and faucet_metrics exist but this is the entry point. No explicit 'when not to use' but the scoping is strong enough to guide selection.

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