Get Bridge Quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it only discloses the backend source ('same first-party Bungee proxy as the extension'). It never states that this is a non-executing read, whether quotes expire, whether they are gasless or require approval, or any rate-limit/auth behavior — material facts for a quote tool that feeds a later 'bridge' call.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler — the resource and the route are established immediately. It is not padded, though the extreme brevity is arguably under-specification for a 15-parameter tool rather than a virtue.

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?

For a 15-parameter, two-required, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, one sentence leaves too much unsaid: no return-value shape, no quote lifecycle (quote then bridge), no defaults summary, and no relationship to sibling quote/status tools. The proxy detail is helpful but far from 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 description coverage is 100% across all 15 parameters, including aliases (chain/originChain, from/userAddress, decimals/tokenDecimals) and slippage overrides, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, defaults, or which of the two required params are the minimum viable set; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a WalletChan bridge quote') and identifies the backend route (first-party Bungee proxy). The word 'quote' implicitly separates it from the execution sibling 'bridge' and from 'get_bridge_status', but the description never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the routing.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says this is the read-only pricing step that should precede 'bridge', nor how it relates to 'get_swap_price', 'get_bridge_status', or the veil/x402 quote tools. The agent is left to guess the call sequence from the name alone.

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