execute_bridge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it returns steps (not executes them), outlines the multi-step flow (approve/deposit for ERC-20, deposit for native), explains step kinds ('transaction' vs 'signature'), specifies how to handle returned steps (via wallet tool), mentions default sender behavior if wallet connected, and notes it returns a requestId for tracking. It doesn't cover error cases or rate limits, but provides substantial operational context.

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 core purpose. It uses bullet points and clear sections to explain steps and kinds, avoiding unnecessary repetition. While somewhat lengthy due to detailed explanations, every sentence earns its place by providing essential operational guidance. A slight deduction for density, but overall efficient.

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 (multi-step bridge/swap flow) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description does a strong job of providing context. It explains what the tool returns (steps, requestId), how to use the output (via wallet tool), and covers key behavioral aspects. It could briefly mention error handling or response format, but for a tool with no output schema, it's largely complete.

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 schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter-specific information beyond the schema—it only implicitly relates to 'sender' by mentioning wallet connection defaults. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 purpose: 'Get a quote and unsigned transactions for a bridge or swap via Relay. Returns ALL steps required to complete the transfer.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('quote and unsigned transactions'), and distinguishes from siblings like get_bridge_quote (which likely only returns a quote) and get_swap_quote by emphasizing it returns the full transaction steps needed for execution.

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 guidance on when to use this tool: for obtaining the steps to execute a bridge/swap via Relay. It distinguishes from alternatives by noting that after calling this tool, you must pass the steps to the 'wallet' tool with action 'execute' for actual execution. It also clarifies the relationship with sibling tools like get_transaction_status for tracking.

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