bridge_quote_multi

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool resolves optimal paths internally and returns ordered hops with per-hop detail. However, it omits details like latency, error behavior, or whether quotes are estimates.

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 extremely concise: three sentences plus a short note. It front-loads the purpose, gives an example, states the return format, and adds a crucial usage caveat. No waste.

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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description covers the main purpose, example, return structure, and alternative tools. It could be enhanced by mentioning that quotes are non-binding estimates, but overall it equips the agent with essential context.

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 7 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond the schema, so 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 'Get quotes for multi-hop routes across supported EVM chains' and provides an illustrative example. It distinguishes from Cosmos-specific tools by directing users to alternatives.

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 explicitly advises against using this tool for Cosmos destinations, directing users to xprt_farm_boost or bridge_get_quote. However, it does not clarify when to prefer this over bridge_get_quote for EVM single-hop routes.

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