defi_get_bridge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns detailed data including volume by chain, which is helpful, but it does not elaborate on the exact response structure or any potential quirks. Since this is a read-only getter with no mutations, the disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and key output. No wasted words, and the sentence structure is clean and front-loaded with the verb 'Get'.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's scope and output focus. It could be slightly more complete by listing specific fields or clarifying differences from bridge volume tools, but it is sufficiently complete for basic use.

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 description fully covers the only parameter (bridgeId), noting it comes from defi_get_bridges. The tool description adds little beyond referring to 'a specific bridge,' so the schema already does the heavy lifting, and a baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 tool's function: retrieving detailed data for a specific bridge, including volume by chain. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like defi_get_bridges or defi_get_bridge_volume, so it lacks the sibling distinction that would merit a 5.

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 when one needs detailed data for a known bridge ID, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. This is minimal but adequate for a simple getter.

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