bridge_flows

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful behavioral traits: the free preview is capped at top 3 flows plus 2 bridge summaries, full history is gated behind a subscription, and data is cached ~10 minutes. It could add return-format details, but it already provides useful non-obvious 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?

The description repeats itself: 'Get recent large cross-chain bridge transfers' appears twice in different wording, and the free-preview limitation is mentioned both in the parenthetical and in the explicit 'Free preview' sentence. The useful facts could fit in one tight sentence, but the redundancy makes it harder to scan.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, it covers the important context: source, free limits, subscription requirement, caching, and a capital-rotation signal. But it does not describe the returned fields/shape and does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling bridge_flow_history, leaving the definition only moderately complete.

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 zero parameters and an empty input schema at 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools 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 resource ('recent large cross-chain bridge transfers'), names the source protocols (Stargate Finance, Socket/Bungee via LI.FI), and adds per-bridge volume summaries. It does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling bridge_flow_history, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implies use for current, recent bridge activity and clearly conveys the free vs. paid boundary ('top 3 flows + 2 bridge summaries... full flow history requires a Weekly Alpha subscription'). However, it never tells the agent when to choose this over bridge_flow_history or any other alternative, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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