get_bridge_quote

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get a quote' implies a non-mutating read operation, but it does not disclose specific behaviors such as return format, whether it estimates fees/slippage, or any limitations. It is not misleading, but provides minimal 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, clear, front-loaded sentence: 'Get a quote for bridging tokens across chains'. It contains no redundancy and every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what a quote includes (e.g., routes, fees, duration), how the optional 'bridge' parameter affects results, or any edge cases. For a moderately complex tool with 5 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with meaningful descriptions (e.g., token address, amount in wei, bridge type). The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so it does not improve on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Get a quote for bridging tokens across chains' – a specific verb (get), resource (quote for bridging), and scope (tokens across chains). It is distinct from sibling tools like execute_bridge, get_bridge_fees, and get_bridge_status, which involve different aspects of bridging.

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 versus alternatives such as get_swap_quote or rubic_get_bridge_quote. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the intended use case 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.