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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces the read-only boundary but adds little beyond annotations, such as rate limits or return details, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded. Every clause earns its place by stating what is read and what is explicitly not done.

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 single-parameter status tool with strong annotations, the description is largely complete and makes the non-mutating scope clear. It could say more about what status information is returned, since there is no output schema, but the essential invocation context is present.

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 the requestId parameter is already documented with its origin from quote or executable steps and a 256-character limit. The description only repeats that a request ID is required, adding no further parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Read Relay intent status v2 for a request ID." It also explicitly rules out submission and retry behavior, which helps distinguish it from action-oriented bridge tools in the sibling set.

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?

It makes the usage context clear by tying the tool to a request ID and stating that it does not submit or retry transactions. It does not explicitly name an alternative or say when not to use it, but the boundary is sufficiently clear for a read-only status check.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety bar is low; the description still adds value by confirming 'Never signs or broadcasts' and explaining that an omitted sender downgrades the call to a non-executable preview. It does not mention rate limits or freshness/expiry of the quote.

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?

Two tight sentences: what is returned first, then the non-signing guarantee and the executeUrl directive. Very little waste, though the 'Always show executeUrl' instruction is a presentation rule rather than a definition concern.

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 10-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description usefully previews the return shape ('fee breakdown and unsigned steps', executeUrl) and the read-only preview mode. Remaining gaps are minor since token/chain tokenomics and decimals validation are fully covered by the schema.

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 ten parameters including the decimals and slippageBps semantics. The description's note that a missing sender yields a preview reiterates what userAddress's schema text already says, adding no new parameter meaning beyond the baseline.

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 ('Fetch a Relay quote') and enumerates the payload ('fee breakdown and unsigned steps'), which an agent can distinguish from check_bridge_order_status and list_supported_chains_and_tokens. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it replaces.

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?

It does give real usage direction ('missing sender creates a preview', 'Always show executeUrl to the user for 1-click browser wallet signing'), but that is invocation etiquette rather than routing guidance. No sibling alternative or when-not-to-use condition is stated, so the agent must infer that a quote precedes onboarding and status checks.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and 'Plan' is consistent with that non-executing profile. The description adds real value beyond annotations: it tells the agent to surface the executeUrl for browser wallet signing, which is a behavioral obligation not captured in any structured field.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no padding; the scope and the executeUrl directive both land early. Slightly terse given the tool's complexity, but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description's callout of executeUrl meaningfully informs what the agent will receive and must do with it. It stops short of describing the broader response (e.g., quoted routes), but covers what matters for correct invocation.

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 every parameter is already documented. The description adds no per-parameter detail (e.g., how fromChain aliases or targetMode 'both' interact), 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?

States a specific verb ('Plan') and resource ('HyperEVM HYPE or Arbitrum USDC funding'), and explicitly carves out that 'L1 deposits remain a separate action'. An agent can tell this is an onboarding/funding-planning tool, though it does not name which sibling to use instead.

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?

Implies usage for onboarding and notes that L1 deposits are out of scope, but gives no explicit routing against siblings like get_cross_chain_bridge_quote or list_supported_chains_and_tokens. The 'when' is inferred rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely non-derivable context: the breadth of coverage (eight chains), that onboarding presets are included, and notably the disclosed 30 bps integrator fee, which an agent could not infer. No mention of caching or response freshness, hence not a 5.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the most important payload items (chains, token addresses) come first. The hardcoded 'eight' is a slight liability since the count may drift, but the sentence itself is tight.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly carries the burden of describing what is returned, and it does so for a zero-required-parameter listing tool with a fully documented optional filter. It only misses stating that omitting 'chain' returns the full set and how presets map to the onboarding siblings.

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% and the single optional 'chain' filter is fully documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description describes only the return payload and adds no meaning about how the chain filter narrows results or what happens when it is omitted.

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?

States a specific verb (List) plus a concrete resource set: supported chains, token addresses, onboarding presets, and the integrator fee. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling quote/onboard/refuel/status tools. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 guidance on when to call this versus the onboarding siblings (polymarket_one_click_onboard, hyperliquid_one_click_onboard) that likely consume this data, nor on whether it should be called before quoting or bridging. The listing nature implies a discovery/discovery-first use, but nothing is stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description is consistent with that while adding real value: it clarifies that nothing is broadcast and that the result yields an executeUrl the agent must surface for signing. That return-value behavior is important since there is no output schema. It stops short of describing what the quote payload contains (fees, delivery estimates) or timing/expiry.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and constraints, followed by the one operational instruction that changes agent behavior. No filler or restated name/title.

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 quote-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the key gap — that the response feeds a browser-signing flow via executeUrl — plus the non-broadcast guarantee. Missing is any indication of what the quote itself returns (amounts, fee breakdown, validity window), which would complete the picture.

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 all six parameters (including the per-wallet denomination and senderAddress preview mode) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the recipient count and ordering constraint that the schema's recipients description also covers, adding no new parameter-level detail.

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 action and resource ('Quote native gas delivery') and scopes it precisely ('for 1–20 recipients without broadcasting, preserving recipient order'). It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from the adjacent quote tool get_cross_chain_bridge_quote, leaving the gas-refuel vs bridge-quote distinction to be inferred from the resource noun.

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 second sentence gives a post-call workflow instruction (show executeUrl for browser wallet signing), which implies this is the quote step preceding an execution step. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of the sibling quote tool as an alternative, and no stated prerequisites beyond the senderAddress hint in the schema.

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

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=true and idempotent, and the description is consistent with that by clarifying the tool only plans rather than creating an account. It adds genuinely non-schema information: the response carries an executeUrl that must be surfaced to the user, and extra gas costs additional input on top of the primary amount. It stops short of describing plan validity/expiry or what happens if userAddress is omitted.

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?

Three short clauses with the scope constraint front-loaded and the critical UI instruction at the end; nothing is padded. The phrase 'Extra gas spends additional input' is slightly awkward and could be tighter, but the size is well matched to the tool.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description compensates by disclosing the executeUrl in the response and the plan-then-sign workflow. Annotations already cover the safety profile. Minor gaps remain around preview-mode limitations and whether quotes expire, but nothing blocking correct invocation is missing.

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 parameters are already well documented (including the gasTopupAmountUsd range and the preview-only meaning of an omitted userAddress). The description's line 'Extra gas spends additional input' reinforces the includeGasTopup/gasTopupAmountUsd semantics but largely restates what the schema already says ('in addition to the full primary input').

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?

States a specific verb and outcome: 'Plan Polygon USDC.e plus optional POL gas', which tells an agent this is a quoting/planning tool, not an executor. The clause 'this does not create a trading account' usefully delimits scope. It never names or contrasts with siblings such as hyperliquid_one_click_onboard or get_cross_chain_bridge_quote, so sibling differentiation is left to the tool name.

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?

Usage is implied through the workflow instruction 'Always show executeUrl to the user for 1-click browser wallet signing', which frames this as the planning step before an out-of-band signing step. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to the obvious alternative onboarding or bridge-quote siblings.

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