rubic_get_bridge_quote

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits such as read-only status, side effects, or response format. It only states that it retrieves a route, but does not indicate whether it queries multiple aggregators, requires wallet connection, or what the response contains. The phrase 'get the best' implies computation but no details.

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?

A single, clear sentence that is efficiently worded and front-loaded with the key action. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core purpose with no wasted information.

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 complex tool with 10 parameters, 5 required inputs, and no output schema or annotations. The description does not explain the return format, how 'best' is determined, what routes contain, or preconditions like testnet configuration. Given this complexity, a one-sentence description is substantially incomplete for an agent to invoke and interpret the response 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?

All 10 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema already explains each field. The description adds no substantive additional meaning beyond the general 'swapping tokens between different blockchains,' which is a slight reinforcement but not new information.

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 gets the best cross-chain bridge route for swapping tokens, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'rubic_get_bridge_quotes' (plural) which likely serves a similar purpose, so there is some ambiguity about whether this returns a single quote or multiple routes.

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 like get_bridge_quote, execute_bridge, or rubic_get_bridge_quotes. The description offers no context, preconditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to 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.