bridge_verdicts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers critical behavior: a $0.02 USDC toll on Base or Solana via x402, and the failure mode where an unpaid call returns 402 payment instructions instead of data. It omits what 'recently' means and the return shape, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: dataset scope, payment model, and failure behavior. The most decision-relevant constraint (the toll and 402 fallback) is stated up front rather than 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?

For a one-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs to call it correctly, especially the paid-access requirement and the 402 behavior. It could say more about the recency window and result shape, but nothing blocks a correct invocation.

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 limit param is documented in the schema with range and default. The description's 'Optional limit 1-200' restates the schema rather than adding syntax or semantics, so baseline 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 resource and scope: 'recently-paid bounties: which bounties actually paid out and how much.' The 'recently-paid / actually paid out' framing is enough to separate it from the sibling bridge_bounties, though the description never names that sibling, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'recently-paid bounties' hints you use this for settled payouts rather than open listings, and the toll sentence tells you the precondition for calling it. There is no explicit when-to-use versus bridge_bounties or any when-not guidance.

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