Bridge assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them: no statement of what data is returned, whether the result is static reference data or reflects live chain state, or what 'valid origins' means in practice. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes no behavioral context.

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?

It is a single short phrase with no padding, so nothing is wasted. However, it is concise to the point of being an incomplete sentence rather than a front-loaded explanation, so brevity costs clarity here.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations already covering the safety profile, the description is the only source of meaning about what this tool returns. It does not say whether the response is a list of bridgeable asset pairs, a mapping of origins per asset, or something else, leaving the tool's output shape entirely unknown.

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 takes zero parameters and the description has no parameter semantics to explain, so the baseline of 4 applies. The mention of 'destination assets' and 'origins' hints at what the invisible output is keyed on, but no parameters exist to clarify.

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 'Bridge destination assets and valid origins' is a noun-phrase fragment that restates the title without a clear verb or object. It never says whether the tool lists bridgeable assets, returns supported origin/destination pairs, or performs a bridge. It also does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling blackpool_bridge_quote.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative, blackpool_bridge_quote, which an agent would need to choose between. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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