get_bridge_fees

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention whether fees are estimates, live quotes, or historical; whether the tool reads on-chain state or queries an API; any rate limits; or the structure/nesting of the fee breakdown (e.g., protocol fee vs network fee vs bridge fee). The description is a bare statement with no behavioral context.

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, focused sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the verb 'Get'. It loses a point because it omits any additional useful context (such as the typical use case or output highlights) that would likely fit within one more sentence without clutter.

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 five required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to know what to expect from the return value or how to interpret the 'detailed fee breakdown'. It does not mention related workflows (e.g., use with get_bridge_quote or execute_bridge), and the absence of an output schema means the description should compensate by outlining the fee structure, but it does not.

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 describes all five parameters (token, amount, sourceChain, destChain, bridge) at 100% coverage, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but the schema's brief descriptions (e.g., 'Token to bridge') are sufficiently clear. However, the description could add nuance like units for 'amount' (already stated as wei) or example values, which it does not.

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 'Get detailed fee breakdown for a bridge transfer' clearly identifies the tool as fetching fee details for a bridging operation. It specifies a concrete resource (bridge transfer fees) and uses a specific verb ('get'), but does little to differentiate from sibling tools like get_bridge_quote or rubic_get_bridge_quote, though 'fee breakdown' implies more granularity than a quote.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_bridge_quote or estimate_bridge_time. The description implies it is for retrieving fee details, but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer when 'detailed fee breakdown' is preferable over other bridge-related tools.

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