get_bridge_transaction_status

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 adds value by specifying the HTTP method (GET), endpoint details, and error behavior (invalid addresses may return 500). However, it doesn't cover other important aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or what 'bridge history' entails, leaving gaps for a tool with potential network interactions.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality, endpoint, constraints, and an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (network call with potential errors), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation and error case but omits details like response structure, success conditions, or integration context. For a tool interacting with an external API, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'address' fully documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal semantics beyond the schema by providing an example ('address=0xabc....') and noting address requirements, but it doesn't elaborate on format constraints or validation rules. This meets the baseline for 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 the tool's purpose: 'Check bridge transactions' via a specific HTTP endpoint. It specifies the resource (bridge transactions) and the action (check status), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_bridge_quote', which might be related but serves a different purpose.

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 some usage context by noting that 'Address must have bridge history' and warns about invalid addresses returning 500 errors. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_bridge_quote' or other transaction-related tools), and there's no mention of prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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