bridge_opportunities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses a TOLLED cost ($0.02 USDC per call), the payment rails and mechanism (Base or Solana via x402), and the failure mode (a 402 payment-instruction response instead of data). It does not discuss result freshness, caching, or rate limits, which matters for an opportunity feed driven by deadlines.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the payment precondition, then the parameter — three compact clauses with no filler. Every sentence earns its place and nothing important is buried at the end.

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 one-parameter aggregation tool with no output schema, listing the normalized fields substitutes well for a return-value description, and the x402 payment behavior is covered. The main residual gap is ordering/freshness of results, which an agent calling an opportunity feed would reasonably want to know.

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% on the single 'limit' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Optional limit 1-200' merely restates the schema's minimum/maximum and default, adding no new semantics (no ordering, pagination, or filtering implications).

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 resource and scope — 'every paying opportunity in one normalized schema' — and enumerates the returned fields (title, payout amount/token, chain, URL, requirements, deadline, board). The phrase 'One call, every board' makes it clear this is the aggregate counterpart to the board-specific siblings like bridge_bounties and bridge_sweepstakes without needing to open any 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?

'One call, every board' implies the aggregate use case versus per-board siblings, and the toll/precondition is stated. However, no sibling tool is named and there is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. use bridge_bounties for a single board, or bridge_deadlines when only deadlines matter), leaving selection to inference.

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