list_bridgeable_tokens

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 that the tool directly queries the Stargate /tokens API, returns a Markdown table, and excludes the source chain from results—useful behavioral details. It does not mention potential rate limits or errors, but for a read-only listing tool, the transparency is adequate.

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 well-structured with separate sections for parameters and return value. Every sentence adds value, and the examples and return format are presented without unnecessary verbosity.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no enums, no nested objects), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how to use it, and what it returns. The output schema is not shown, but the description explicitly describes the return format as a Markdown table, so no critical information is missing.

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 input schema only provides type 'string' for both parameters with no descriptions. The description compensates fully by naming each parameter and giving concrete examples ('ethereum' for chain, a USDC contract address for token), which is essential for correct invocation.

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: 'Retrieve a list of bridgeable destination chains and tokens for a given source chain and token.' It specifies both the resource (bridgeable tokens) and the scope (given source chain and token), and it is distinct from sibling tools like list_chains, get_quotes, and bridge_transfer.

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 context: you would use this tool when you need to see available bridging destinations from a specific source chain and token. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the purpose is clear enough to guide selection among siblings.

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