q402_bridge_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full safety burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only; no auth required', which is a key behavioral disclosure. It also reveals return behavior (both LINK and native fee). While it doesn't discuss potential edge cases like rate changes, it provides solid transparency for a quote 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 two sentences: the first states purpose and scope, the second explains the output and safety. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action.

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?

The tool is straightforward with four well-documented parameters and no output schema. The description covers purpose, output, and safety. It doesn't mention that quotes may be estimates or subject to change, but given the tool's simplicity and the rich sibling context, it's nearly complete. A 4 reflects one small gap: no explicit caveat about quote validity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that amount refers to USDC and chains are limited to the triangle, but adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. It does not compensate for any gaps because there are none.

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 uses a specific verb ('Quote') with a clear resource ('Chainlink CCIP fee for bridging USDC across the 3-chain triangle'). It explicitly names the three chains and distinguishes itself from siblings like q402_quote and q402_oft_quote by focusing on CCIP bridging fees and returning both LINK and native fee options.

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 gives clear context: this tool is for quoting bridge fees, and it's read-only with no auth required. It also explains the benefit (picking the cheaper path). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like q402_oft_quote, so it stops short of a full 5.

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