hashport_validate_bridge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'validate bridge parameters', implying a read-only or check operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's safe (non-destructive), authentication needs, rate limits, or what validation entails (e.g., format checks, availability). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential complexity.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's function, making it easy to understand quickly.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that likely involves complex validation logic (e.g., cross-network asset transfers), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what validation checks are performed, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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 all 6 parameters with basic descriptions. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond implying validation of these parameters, but it doesn't explain parameter interactions, validation rules, or semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('validate bridge parameters') and the context ('before initiating a bridge'), providing a specific verb and purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'hashport_get_bridge_steps' or 'hashport_get_transfers', which might also relate to bridge operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 description implies usage 'before initiating a bridge', suggesting a pre-check step, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other validation or bridge-related tools) or any exclusions. No clear context or alternatives are mentioned, making it minimal guidance.

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