bridge_tokens

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'verified token symbols, contract addresses, and decimals' and supports specific chains. It is transparent about the output format and scope, though it does not mention rate limits or error handling, which is acceptable for a read-only list 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 consists of two concise sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states purpose and output, the second adds supported chains and a usage hint. Every sentence is essential and well-structured.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately covers purpose, output format, supported chains, and downstream usage. It does not mention pagination or limits, but for a list of popular tokens, this is sufficient.

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% with descriptions for both parameters (chain, search). The description adds no new parameter-specific information beyond the schema; it only provides broader context about output usage. Therefore, it meets the baseline expectation for a tool with high schema coverage.

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 'List popular tokens available for bridging on a given chain' with a specific verb (List) and resource (tokens for bridging). It distinguishes from sibling tools like bridge_chains (lists chains) and bridge_get_quote (gets quotes).

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 instructs 'Use token symbols or addresses from this list in bridge_get_quote', guiding the agent on how to use the output. It also mentions supported chains (EVM, Persistence, Cosmos Hub). However, it doesn't provide when-not-to-use or alternative tools beyond the implicit differentiation from siblings.

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