bridge_token_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so unusually well: it discloses a non-standard metered billing model ($0.05 USDC per call on Base or Solana via x402) and the exact failure mode — a 402 payment-instruction payload is returned instead of data when payment is unavailable. That is the single most important behavioral fact an agent needs before calling, and it is stated explicitly.

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 does, then the payment model, then the fallback behavior. Every sentence earns its place: no repetition of the tool name, no filler, and the critical cost/failure information is not buried.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by listing the returned signals and verdict, and no annotations, so it supplies the payment and error behavior itself. Combined with the fully documented 2-parameter schema, an agent has everything required to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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%, so the schema already documents both `mint` (token contract address) and `network` (chain enum base/solana). The description only restates 'requires mint and network' and adds no format, validation, or semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('token rug scan') and enumerates the exact signals produced: liquidity, volume, buys/sells, holder concentration, a heuristic 0-100 score and a verdict. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like bridge_prices, bridge_markets, or bridge_verdicts without opening the 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?

Provides clear context for when to use it — scanning a token for rug risk when the mint and chain are known — and states the hard prerequisite ('Requires mint and network'). It does not name an alternative tool or a when-not condition (e.g., how it differs from bridge_verdicts or bridge_enrich), so it stops short of explicit routing.

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