bridge_get_quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that symbols resolve to verified canonical addresses only, includes a failedProviders array, lists error codes, and mentions the return format (ranked options by output amount, speed, fees). It does not mention auth needs or rate limits, but the error code 'Rate limited' hints at rate limiting. Overall, good transparency for a non-destructive query tool.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. It covers supported chains, token resolution, return format, preconditions, and error codes in a logical order. Every sentence adds value, though the list of providers could be shortened. Still, it is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, cross-chain, multiple providers) and no output schema, the description covers inputs, behavior, and outputs adequately. It describes the return as ranked options by output amount, speed, and fees, plus a failedProviders array. While it lacks detailed output structure, it provides enough context for an agent to use the tool 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% (baseline 3). The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: explains that amounts are in human-readable units, fromChain accepts names or IDs, symbols resolve to verified addresses, providers optional defaults to all, and fromAddress format depends on chain. This extra detail justifies a score of 4.

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 quote across multiple providers, listing specific providers and supported chains. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like bridge_execute (to act on a quote) and bridge_quote_multi (implied alternative). The inclusion of error codes adds to clarity.

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?

Explicitly states 'Preconditions: None for quoting' and 'Use bridge_execute to act on a quote', providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not distinguish from bridge_quote_multi or mention when to avoid using this tool (e.g., for historical data). The guidance is sufficient for the primary use case.

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