list_bridges

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses sorting order ('last24hVolume descending'), return format (table with columns), and the effect of the optional parameter (include chain breakdowns). This provides sufficient behavioral insight for a read-only list tool, though it could mention data freshness or potential limitations like pagination.

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 concise two-sentence block with a bullet-style parameter explanation. It front-loads the main action and sorting, then clearly details the optional parameter. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 optional parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the essential return columns and behavior. It adequately sets expectations for a list operation. However, it could mention whether data is real-time or includes a timestamp, and that it is a read-only operation (though implied). Overall, it is substantially complete.

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?

The single parameter 'include_chains' is explained in detail: 'Whether to include current previous day volume breakdown by chain.' The input schema only provides type info (boolean/null, default false), so the description adds critical semantic meaning about the parameter's effect. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 explicitly states 'Fetch and return a list of all bridges from DeFiLlama in a table format, sorted by last24hVolume in descending order.' It clearly identifies the action, resource, and key behavior. The sibling tools (get_day_stats, get_historical_volumes, get_transactions, list_chains) are distinct in function, so this tool's purpose is well-differentiated.

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 for obtaining a list of bridges, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_chains or get_day_stats. No 'when-not-to-use' or alternative suggestions are given, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool's name and description.

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