bridge_tokens

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 mentions the tool returns a quote and route but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context for a tool that could involve financial transactions.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by parameter and return details. The 'Price: $0.50' line is slightly extraneous but not wasteful. Overall, it's efficient with minimal fluff.

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 (cross-chain transfers) and lack of annotations, the description is moderately complete but has gaps. It explains parameters and returns, and an output schema exists, so return values needn't be detailed. However, it misses behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or error handling, which are crucial for such operations.

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?

The description lists all parameters with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It clarifies that 'recipient' is optional and different from default, and specifies the purpose of each parameter. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., chain identifiers, token address formats), leaving some ambiguity.

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 with specific verbs ('Get bridge quote and route') and resources ('cross-chain token transfer'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on analysis, trading, or other blockchain operations. It precisely defines what the tool does without restating the name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'build_transaction' or 'get_batch_quote' for similar operations. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the tool is for planning versus execution, or any exclusions for specific scenarios.

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