defi_get_bridges

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns a list of bridges with volume data, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as data source, freshness, pagination, or ordering. There is no contradiction with annotations, but the transparency is minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the essential purpose and output data in an appropriately concise manner.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with no parameters and no output schema. The description adequately explains what the tool returns ('list of all cross-chain bridges with volume data'), which is sufficient for a simple list operation. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the data source or scope of 'all' bridges, so it does not earn a perfect score.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially fully covered. According to the rubric, 0 params warrants a baseline of 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning because none are needed.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get list of all cross-chain bridges with volume data.' It clearly states the scope ('all') and the included data (volume), distinguishing it from sibling tools like defi_get_bridge (specific bridge) and defi_get_bridge_volume (volume for a specific bridge).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what the tool returns; it does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons with related tools such as defi_get_bridge_volume or get_bridge_quote.

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