fetch_bridge_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral traits: it is a public catalog requiring no credentials, and it enumerates what is returned (decimals, minimums, confirmations, fees). It does not mention rate limits, caching, or pagination behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its payload, followed by the auth model and the discovery use case. The parenthetical asset lists are dense but each detail earns its place by documenting an otherwise-unspecified return shape.

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?

With no output schema, the description must document the return value, and it does: chains, per-chain depositable/withdrawable assets, decimals, minimum amounts, confirmations, and fees. Nothing an agent needs to call a zero-param catalog tool correctly 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics for the description to add. The description appropriately spends its words on the return content instead.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('bridgeable chains ... depositable/withdrawable assets'), and enumerates the per-chain fields returned. It does not differentiate from the near-identical sibling get_bridge_assets, which appears in the sibling list, so an agent has no stated basis for choosing between the two.

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?

Gives clear selection context: 'Use it to discover valid chain values for the other bridge tools,' which tells the agent exactly when to reach for it. It stops short of naming when-not to use it or explicitly routing against the duplicate get_bridge_assets sibling.

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