bridge_fresh

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two important behaviors: a $0.02 USDC toll per call via x402 on Base or Solana, and that failure to pay returns 402 payment instructions instead of data. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema. It stops short of describing return format or pagination, keeping it at a 4.

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 compact and front-loads the identity and scope before the pricing detail. Every sentence carries information, though the 'Optional limit 1-200' clause duplicates the schema and is wasted space.

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-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost model, and the payment-failure branch, which is what an agent most needs to avoid a broken call. Missing return-shape detail is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 param is fully documented in the schema (range 1-200, default 50). The description's 'Optional limit 1-200' merely repeats the schema without adding semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('bounties posted in the last 24 hours'), clearly distinguishing it from the generic bridge_bounties sibling. However, it never explicitly names or contrasts against bridge_bounties or other listing siblings, leaving differentiation to inference. A clear purpose, but not 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?

The 24-hour recency window implies a use case (finding fresh opportunities), and the payment prerequisite is stated. But there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-bridge_bounties guidance, and no mention of when the 24h window makes this the wrong choice. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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