Token bridge: escrow, flows, claimable withdrawals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and it does useful work: it defines what the gap means, labels deposits/withdrawals as 'latest', and specifies the seven-day withdrawal window. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the observational language and absence of side effects make that clear.

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 a single dense sentence with no filler—the main output categories are front-loaded and the useful 'value in flight' explanation earns its place. The grammar is slightly compressed, but it remains readable and efficient.

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?

The description covers the main output domains and gives one parameter hint, which is helpful for a two-parameter tool with no output schema. Still, it does not clarify how limit applies, what the default output shape is, or how the listed categories are structured, so an agent must infer some invocation details.

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 0%, so the description must clarify parameters; it does add meaning to symbol by saying it narrows the flows. However, the limit parameter is never mentioned, and the precise meaning of 'flows' in the filtering context is left somewhat ambiguous. This is partial compensation at best.

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 states the tool reports bridge-specific data: L1 escrow versus L2 supply, recent L2 deposits/withdrawals, and withdrawals past the seven-day claim window. The verb is implicit rather than explicit, but the resource and scope are specific enough to distinguish it from general status or asset-listing siblings.

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 domain context (token bridge escrow and flows) makes it clear when an agent would use this tool, and the mention that 'symbol narrows the flows' provides a filtering hint. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives such as status, activity, or history, nor any when-not-to-use conditions.

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