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 declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real value by confirming it 'Never signs or broadcasts' and disclosing that omitting a sender degrades to a preview. Still no mention of rate limits or quote expiry, so 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?

Two tight sentences with no waste: the core action and return contents come first, followed by the safety and preview caveats. Every clause earns its place.

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 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies enough for correct invocation plus the preview/unsigned semantics. It stops short of covering quote lifetime or supported-chain preconditions, which the sibling list tool presumably handles.

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 carries all ten parameters with formats and ranges. The description's only param-relevant claim (missing sender -> preview) duplicates what userAddress's schema description already says, so it adds no meaning beyond structured fields.

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+resource ('Fetch a Relay quote') and names the payload contents ('fee breakdown and unsigned steps'), which is well beyond a tautology. It implicitly separates itself from check_bridge_order_status by being a quote rather than a status lookup, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 when-to-use is implied (get a quote before executing a bridge) and the fallback mode is noted ('missing sender creates a preview'), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over check_bridge_order_status or the onboarding tools, and no prerequisites are spelled out.

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, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally; the description's contribution is the L1 scope boundary plus the implication that this is a planning step. It does not say whether execution ever occurs, what the plan contains, or any auth/rate-limit behavior.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the supported destinations front-loaded and the scope caveat second. Nothing repeats the name or wastes tokens.

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 six-parameter, open-world, read-only planning tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it never says what a 'plan' returns (routes, quotes, fees) or that omitting userAddress yields a non-executable preview. The schema covers inputs, but the output/behavior side of a planning tool is left for the agent to guess.

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 targetMode enum and the userAddress preview caveat) are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the two destinations and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, 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 the second sentence scopes out L1 deposits. It is clear what the tool produces (a funding plan), though it does not name a sibling alternative the way the strongest definitions do.

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 exclusion 'L1 deposits remain a separate action' gives one useful when-not boundary, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_cross_chain_bridge_quote or the other onboarding tool. Usage is implied by the tool name and funding destinations 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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so "without broadcasting" is largely reinforcing known safety. The genuinely additive disclosure is "preserving recipient order," a behavioral guarantee about ordered handling that the annotations do not cover.

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?

A single tight sentence with the operation front-loaded and no filler. Every clause (quote, gas delivery, 1–20 recipients, no broadcast, order preserved) carries distinct information.

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 read-only quote tool with rich annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description covers purpose and the key ordering guarantee. With no output schema present, it would ideally say something about what the quote returns (estimated cost, delivery amounts), which is the only real gap.

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%, including minItems/maxItems and per-field semantics, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description only restates the 1–20 recipient bound and ordering, adding almost nothing beyond the schema, which puts it at the baseline 3.

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 (quote) and resource (native gas delivery) plus a scope constraint (1–20 recipients), so an agent knows exactly what operation this is. It does not name or distinguish itself from the sibling get_cross_chain_bridge_quote, which is also a quote tool, so it falls short of a 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?

"without broadcasting" implies this is a preview/quote step rather than an execution step, which is useful implied guidance. However there is no explicit when-to-use versus the bridge-quote sibling, no stated prerequisites, and no guidance on when a quote should precede a refuel.

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, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two real facts beyond them: extra gas consumes additional input, and the call does not open a trading account. It still says nothing about what the plan contains or whether downstream execution is required.

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 short sentences, zero filler, purpose front-loaded. The downside is that the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight writing, but nothing in the text is redundant.

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?

This is a 7-parameter tool with no output schema, so the description should describe what a 'plan' returns and how the read-only preview path (userAddress omitted) differs from a runnable plan. Neither is addressed, leaving a material gap for an agent deciding how to use 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 description coverage is 100% across all 7 parameters, so the schema already documents amount, fromChain, fromToken, userAddress, gasTopupAmountUsd, and the rest. The description only echoes the gas top-up behavior, adding no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the intended resources (Polygon USDC.e, optional POL gas) and the verb 'plan', which points toward a quote/preview tool. However, 'plan' is never unpacked, so the agent cannot tell whether the tool returns a price quote, a list of transactions, or a multi-step route. It only partially separates itself from sibling hyperliquid_one_click_onboard.

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 and no reference to any sibling tool such as get_cross_chain_bridge_quote or hyperliquid_one_click_onboard. The clause 'this does not create a trading account' is a scope boundary, but it rules out a capability rather than telling the agent when to pick this tool over an alternative.

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