bridge_create_virtual_account

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions auto-conversion to stablecoins, but omits details on prerequisites (e.g., need for an existing wallet), fees, reversibility, or idempotency behavior. As a creating tool with side effects, this lacks sufficient depth.

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?

A single, focused sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and key feature. There is no wordiness or redundant information.

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?

While the purpose is clear, the description does not address the tool's 8-parameter complexity, including the mutually exclusive bridge_wallet_id/destination_address options, or what output to expect. No output schema and no annotations leave the description insufficient for complete usage guidance.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter texts, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, merely restating the high-level purpose without elaborating on parameters or their relationships.

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 'Create a virtual account (fiat deposit address) that auto-converts to stablecoins', which clearly identifies the action (create), resource (virtual account), and core behavior (auto-conversion). It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like bridge_create_wallet or bridge_create_transfer by specifying 'fiat deposit address'.

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 creating a virtual account for fiat deposits but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternative tools or any exclusions. Context is minimal, relying on the tool's name and general purpose.

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