Follow funds across a bridge

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing supported protocols and the shape of the result (cross-chain hash, recipient, amounts). It omits latency/rate-limit or failure behavior for unreachable chains.

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 core action, then the input modes, then the sibling routing note. No filler.

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 output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields and both input paths, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. It is slightly thin on what happens for unsupported chains or empty scans.

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 75%, near the high band where the schema does the heavy lifting. The description clarifies the two input modes (signatures vs address scan) but does not explain scanLimit's meaning or the 'case' parameter, leaving some gap the schema alone fills.

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 resource ('Resolve where funds went when they left Solana ... through Wormhole, deBridge or Mayan') and names the concrete outputs (other chain, recipient, amounts, cross-chain tx hash). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling trace_funds, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives two concrete invocation modes ('Pass signatures, or an address to scan its recent history for bridge transactions') and notes that 'trace_funds already resolves the crossings it meets,' which implies when this dedicated tool is warranted. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use rule, so not a 5.

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