TokenOS Gas & Fee Tracker

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the set of chains evaluated, which is useful context, but says nothing about how ranking is computed, whether results are cached/live, or the response shape.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the verb and scope with no filler. It is tight and readable, though it devotes its space to listing chains rather than clarifying the ambiguous speed input.

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 output schema and annotations covering safety, the main gap is semantic: the speed enum and its effect on results are unexplained, leaving an agent unsure how to pick a value. Chain enumeration is helpful, but the definition is not quite complete for a cost-ranking tool with an opaque enum.

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 coverage is only 50%: bytecode_kb is documented (default 24 KB) but the speed parameter carries no explanation of what slow/standard/fast affects in the cost estimate. The description is silent on both parameters, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on the ambiguous enum.

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 (rank) and resource (chains by deployment cost), and enumerates the compared chains so the agent knows the scope. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from estimate_tx_cost, but 'deploy a contract or program' vs transaction-cost siblings is inferable.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternatives estimate_tx_cost or gas_now. The only implicit cue is 'given bytecode size', which hints at the input but does not route the agent between this tool and its siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and side-effect profile is covered structurally. The description adds the tx_type enumeration and the 'explicit gas / compute units' override path, but says nothing about pricing source, freshness, or currency of the result. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is warranted.

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 that enumerates the key dimensions without padding. It is appropriately sized, though the parenthetical enum list is slightly redundant with the schema and adds length without new meaning.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what comes back (cost denomination, native token vs USD, whether it is an estimate range). It explains nothing about the return value, and with only 25% schema coverage on four parameters the definition leaves an agent guessing about the result shape.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It does list the tx_type values and clarify the gas_units override ('gas units (EVM) or compute units (Solana)'), but it merely repeats enum members already in the schema and adds no meaning for 'speed' tiers or chain-specific behavior, leaving the coverage gap only partly filled.

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 resource and scope: the cost of one transaction on a chain at a given speed tier, parameterized by tx type or explicit units. That is enough to distinguish it from gas_now and cheapest_chain_to_deploy in spirit, though it never names those siblings or explicitly contrasts the per-transaction view with them.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance. The phrase 'one transaction on a chain at a speed tier' implies the estimation scenario, but it never says when to prefer this over gas_now (live gas prices) or cheapest_chain_to_deploy (cross-chain comparison), nor does it state prerequisites.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety needs little prose. Because there is no output schema, the description carries real weight by enumerating the returned structure (base fee, tiered costs, USD per transaction type, trend, cheapest chain). It omits fetch freshness/caching behavior, which 'Current/Live' only loosely implies.

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 sentence with the scope front-loaded ('Current fees on...') followed by a compact colon list of returned fields. Efficient and scannable, though the list is dense enough that it borders on a return-value dump.

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 output schema, the description is the only source of return-value information and it covers the main fields plus the chain coverage. Nothing critical is missing for a parameterless, read-only informational tool; only freshness/refresh semantics are left unstated.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are fully described with defaults and enums in the schema itself. The description's references to 'slow/standard/fast tiers' and the named chains mirror the schema without adding syntax, defaults, or interaction details beyond it, so the 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?

Specific verb (returns current fees) plus concrete resource scope (five named chains) and an enumeration of returned fields, so the agent immediately knows what it gets. It stops short of differentiating from siblings such as cheapest_chain_to_deploy, which it partially overlaps by mentioning 'the cheapest chain' as an output.

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?

Read-only, always-available usage is implied by the 'Current fees' framing, and the schema makes defaulting clear. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer gas_now over estimate_tx_cost for per-transaction costing, and the 'cheapest chain' output arguably encroaches on cheapest_chain_to_deploy without acknowledging it.

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