Get Bridge Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Fetch' implies a read-only lookup, but the description does not state that the call is safe/idempotent, whether authentication is required, what happens when a hash is unknown or the bridge is pending, or any latency considerations.

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 no filler; the resource and both identifier options come first. It is appropriately sized, though it could have spent one more clause on the requestHash/txHash relationship.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the one-sentence description is thin. It leaves the agent guessing about mutual exclusivity of the two keys, error behavior for unknown hashes, and the shape of the returned status.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add value by clarifying that requestHash is a Bungee request hash and txHash is a source transaction hash, going beyond the bare 'string' types. It still omits whether the two are mutually exclusive, which takes precedence, and expected hash formats.

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 states a specific verb (fetch), resource (WalletChan bridge status), and the two lookup keys, so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_bridge_quote or bridge, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_request_status or veil_deposit_status, which also fetch statuses.

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?

Usage is implied by naming the two accepted identifiers (Bungee requestHash or source txHash), which tells the agent when the tool applies. However, it gives no guidance on which key to prefer, whether either is required, or how this differs from the other status-fetching siblings.

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