bridge_execute

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

Even without annotations, the description thoroughly discloses behavior: returns unsigned transaction(s) by default, optional signing with wallet key, preconditions (sufficient gas, approval flow), and post-use monitoring (bridge_status). It also notes a limitation: 'Solana falls back to unsigned.' This is highly transparent.

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 dense paragraph but efficiently structured: main purpose first, then details. Every sentence adds value—preconditions, modes, approval flow, post-execution step. No redundant or vague statements. Slightly long but appropriate for a complex tool.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values and workflow. It mentions 'unsigned transaction(s)', approval transaction sequencing, and a trackingId for bridge_status. It covers preconditions, execution modes, and post-execution monitoring, making it complete for an agent to use effectively.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: explains that slippage has a default and is reserved for future overrides, describes sign_and_send behavior across chains, and clarifies that quoteId comes from bridge_get_quote. This exceeds the schema alone.

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 function: 'Get the unsigned transaction data to execute a cross-chain bridge transfer.' It specifies the supported providers and distinguishes from siblings like bridge_get_quote (quote) and bridge_status (monitoring). The verb 'execute' and resource 'bridge transfer' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit preconditions: 'Call bridge_get_quote first and pass the quoteId.' It also explains when to use sign_and_send vs unsigned mode, and mentions handling approval transactions. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool, the context is clear for an AI agent to decide.

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