Get a bridge quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the cost and the fact it's a quote, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state that no execution occurs or provide other behavioral details like idempotency or error handling. This is moderate disclosure.

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 essential purpose ('Across Protocol bridge quote') followed by key specifics (tokens, chains, cost). No filler 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?

For a simple quote tool with 3 params and no output schema, the description provides essential context: purpose, supported chains/tokens, destination, and fee. It lacks explicit output format or a note that it does not execute the bridge, but these are minor gaps for a quote tool.

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 schema already describes originChainId and amount, and token has an enum. The description adds the destination (Robinhood Chain) and confirms the supported chains/tokens, but does not add deeper meaning for individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. With 67% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 names a specific protocol (Across Protocol), a clear action (bridge quote), the supported tokens (USDC/WETH), origin chains (Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base), destination (Robinhood Chain), and cost ($0.01 USDG). This is a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes it from the sibling 'quote' tool.

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 clearly implies this tool is for bridging assets from the listed chains to Robinhood Chain, providing contextual usage. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'quote' tool or state exclusions, but the specificity of the bridge context makes it easy to infer when to use it.

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