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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world behavior, but the description adds non-obvious operational context: pricing is $0.005 USDC per successful call via x402 across Base/Solana/Arc, and failed calls are not charged. It also discloses the classification boundaries so the agent knows how ambiguous boundary values resolve. What it does not state is data freshness or latency of 'live' buckets.

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?

Front-loaded with the classification rule, then alternatives, then pricing — a sensible ordering with no filler. It is dense but every sentence carries information; the only minor redundancy is restating the title's regime framing in the first clause.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description still supplies the thresholds, units, sibling disambiguation, and payment terms. Nothing an agent needs in order to decide to call this and interpret the result is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. It usefully defines the unit of the output domain (sompi/gram, 1 KAS = 1e8 sompi), which aids interpretation even though it is not a parameter concern.

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 names a specific resource (Kaspa fee market regime) and operation (classification into quiet/normal/busy/congested) and immediately gives the decision rule with numeric thresholds in sompi/gram. An agent can tell exactly what this returns without opening the schema, and it is clearly distinct from the fee_estimate and mempool siblings.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to two alternatives with the condition that selects each: crypto_kaspa_fee_estimate for raw priority/normal/low buckets and crypto_kaspa_mempool for live unconfirmed counts. What is missing is a positive statement of when to prefer this summarized regime call (e.g. 'use when you only need a coarse congestion verdict'), which is only implied by the classification rule.

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