defi_get_bridge_volume

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get historical bridge volume' and does not disclose time range, response format, units, rate limits, or any read-only guarantees. This is a significant gap for a data retrieval tool.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It earns its place despite being minimal.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It doesn't specify historical range (e.g., daily, hourly), whether the value is in USD or native token, or how the output is structured. This lack of context makes it harder for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% (the only parameter 'chain' is described as 'Chain name'), so the schema already provides basic meaning. The description adds 'specific chain' but no value formats, examples, or enumeration. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 retrieves historical bridge volume for a specific chain, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('historical bridge volume'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like defi_get_bridges (list bridges) and defi_get_bridge (get a specific bridge) by focusing on volume data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There are many sibling tools for DeFi data (e.g., defi_get_dex_volume, defi_get_options_volume), but no mention of exclusions or preferred contexts. The user must infer usage from the name alone.

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