get_bridge_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the access profile ('Public catalog — no credentials needed') and enumerates the returned fields (decimals, minimum amounts, confirmations, fees), which is meaningful behavioral context. It does not cover rate limits or caching, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, zero waste, and the most decision-relevant fact (deprecation and its replacement) is front-loaded before the payload description.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description fully enumerates what the call returns and why an agent would call it, and it flags the deprecation. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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 of 4 applies. The description correctly signals a no-argument call by describing it as a public catalog rather than implying any filtering options.

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 with per-chain depositable/withdrawable assets), and explicitly names the sibling that supersedes it (fetch_bridge_assets). An agent can distinguish it from fetch_bridge_assets and the deposit-address tools without opening any schema.

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 explicit when-not guidance ('Deprecated: use fetch_bridge_assets') and explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use it to discover valid `chain` values for the other bridge tools'). The routing to alternatives and the purpose of the output are both spelled out.

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