Оценка перевода

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that no transactions are sent (read-only behavior), which is the key transparency point. However, it doesn't describe what happens on validation failure, rate limits, or what the response format looks like.

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 concise sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and what's checked; the second gives an actionable sequencing directive. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 straightforward quote/check tool with 4 simple parameters, all documented. The description covers the non-obvious aspects (no transaction sent, call order relative to bridge_start). No output schema exists, so some description of what's returned would help, but for a validation tool the current coverage is quite 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has its own description. The description names the checked items (balances, commission, limits) but adds little param-specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already documents all params.

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?

Description clearly states the verb ('Проверяет маршрут') and the resource scope (balances, commission, limits) without sending transactions. It distinguishes itself from bridge_start (which actually executes) by explicitly noting no transactions are sent.

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?

Provides an explicit usage directive: 'Вызывай перед bridge_start' (call before bridge_start), establishing clear sequencing context. It doesn't explicitly exclude sibling tools like bridge_status or bridge_wallet_info, but the sequencing guidance is strong.

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