GasNow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful qualifier that values are 'Live' and sourced 'from the mempool', indicating real-time freshness, but says nothing about caching, rate limits, or failure modes.

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 verb, resource, unit, tier list and data source all fit without redundancy.

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 zero-param, no-output-schema tool this description is nearly sufficient: it conveys the unit and the four categories of fee returned. Only light gaps remain around data freshness semantics (e.g., cache TTL) inherent to a 'Live' feed.

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?

Zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4 per the rubric. The description still earns that baseline by clarifying the units (sat/vB) and the four tiers returned, which is return-value context rather than parameter information.

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+resource (Bitcoin fee rates) with units in sat/vB and enumerates the four rate tiers returned. It is not explicitly differentiated from the sibling get_network_fees, which is a plausible overlap, so it stops short of a 5.

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 never says when to choose this tool over get_network_fees, get_gas_price, or get_exchange_withdrawal_fees, nor states any preconditions. Usage is only implied by the resource name itself, which matches the 'no guidance' band.

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 readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive semantics, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: quotes are for a ~$100 transfer size, supported assets are USDT/USDC/ETH/BTC, and the response includes the bridge used and time estimate.

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 dense sentence with the essential scope (cheapest route, total cost, fixed amount, assets, output fields) front-loaded before the filter note. No filler.

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 two-param read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (cost, time, bridge) and the fixed transfer size, which an agent needs to interpret the result. Only minor gaps remain, such as multi-asset aggregation behavior.

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%, but both parameters are enums with fully self-describing network values. The description only says 'filter by source and destination network', which maps to from/to but adds no syntax or edge-case guidance (e.g. whether from can equal to, or per-asset behavior). Baseline for enum-only params.

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+resource: it returns the cheapest live bridge route and total cost for moving ~$100 of a named set of assets between networks, with examples (Tron→BNB Chain, Ethereum→Base). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_network_fees or get_exchange_withdrawal_fees.

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 closing sentence 'Filter by source and destination network' implies how to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over get_network_fees or get_exchange_withdrawal_fees, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the content is English-only, sourced from Jornal Bitcoin, results are ordered newest-first, and each item includes a short summary. It does not mention freshness/latency or caching, which keeps it off a 5.

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 tight sentence with the most useful facts (language, source, ordering) front-loaded and zero filler. The parenthetical source attribution interrupts the flow slightly but costs almost nothing.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the essentials an agent needs: what comes back, in what language, from where, and in what order. Only the limit parameter's meaning and the empty/error case are left unaddressed.

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 single parameter (limit, default 10, range 1-30) has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full explanatory burden and fails to mention it at all. 'Newest first' hints at ordering but says nothing about how many items are returned or that the count is adjustable.

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 gives a specific resource (crypto headlines), the content shape (short summaries), the source (Jornal Bitcoin), the language scope (English), and the ordering (newest first). It is naturally distinct from every sibling, which are all fee/gas/price tools, though it does not explicitly name or route away from 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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance of any kind. The tool is simple enough that usage is largely self-evident, but the definition offers no explicit context for selection.

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 the safety profile is fully covered and the description does not contradict it. The description adds the unit context (coin units and USD) but says nothing about data freshness, rate limits, or the no-filter default return set.

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?

Two tight sentences with the scope and coverage front-loaded; nothing is padded. The closing filter sentence overlaps with what the schema already exposes, which keeps it from a full 5.

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 low-complexity lookup with three optional enum params and no output schema, the description conveys the resource, the supported exchanges/coins/networks, and the returned units of measure. It omits what happens when no filters are supplied and whether fees are current, but the remaining gap is minor.

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 33% (only network is described), but the two enum parameters are self-documenting and the description's enumeration of coins and exchanges simply restates those enum values rather than adding syntax, defaults, or format meaning. It does confirm the three filters align with the schema, so a baseline 3 fits.

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+resource (withdrawal fees charged by exchanges) and enumerates the exact coverage: six named exchanges, three coins, per-network. That is far more specific than the sibling get_network_fees or get_bitcoin_fees. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling to disambiguate against, so 5 is not warranted.

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?

"Filter by exchange, coin and network" tells the agent how to narrow results, which implies usage, but never states when this tool is preferable to get_network_fees or get_bitcoin_fees, nor any exclusion or prerequisite. Usage is only implied.

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 profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations do not: units (gwei), the specific returned fields, and the freshness basis (last 20 blocks).

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 that is fully front-loaded: resource, units, and return breakdown all appear before any ellipsis could be needed. No filler words.

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 must describe return values, and it does (base fee and four tier levels). The only shortfall is that the chain parameter's default and supported values live solely in the schema enum, so an agent must still open the schema to know the input surface.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description carries some burden, but it never mentions the 'chain' parameter, its default of ethereum, or which chains are supported. The enum values are largely self-explanatory, so the description's implied 'EVM chain' framing adds only marginal value.

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 (gas price on an EVM chain) and even details the return shape (base fee plus slow/standard/fast/instant tiers), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_network_fees or get_bitcoin_fees, so it stops short of a 5.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. The word 'Live' faintly implies real-time queries, but nothing tells the agent how this differs from get_network_fees or when to prefer one over the other.

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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by declaring the return medium (Markdown) and the breadth of payload, but says nothing about freshness, size, rate limits, or auth requirements.

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 hedging, and every listed item informs scope. The run-on enumeration is dense but each element earns its place by telling the agent what fields to expect.

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 parameters, no nested objects and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload, and it does so comprehensively by listing all data categories. Only the lack of any freshness/caching note keeps it short of complete.

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; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond confirming that the snapshot is unfiltered and always returns the full dashboard.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (a snapshot of the GasNow dashboard) and enumerates exactly what data it contains, so an agent can tell it returns everything rather than one metric. It doesn't explicitly name the narrower siblings it supersedes, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

"Everything ... at once" implies this is the broad aggregate to use instead of calling get_gas_price / get_bitcoin_fees / get_network_fees individually, but that routing is left to inference. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement.

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 the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful scope detail (currencies, 12 networks) but does not disclose refresh cadence, whether fees are live or cached, 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?

Front-loads the resource and cost dimensions, then closes with a practical query example. Dense but every clause carries meaning; the network enumeration is somewhat redundant with the enum but aids scannability.

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 zero-required-param, read-only query tool with no output schema, the description conveys scope (currencies, operations, network list) well enough to call correctly. It could note the default behavior when 'network' is omitted, which is the one meaningful gap.

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 the single optional 'network' param is a well-documented enum. The description lists the same 12 networks the enum contains, so it adds no semantics beyond what the schema already provides. 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 resource (USD/BRL network fees) and enumerates exactly what cost dimensions it covers – native send, USDT/USDC to holder/new address, and swap – across 12 named networks. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_gas_price (EVM gas only) and get_exchange_withdrawal_fees (CEX fees).

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?

Provides a concrete example use case ('what is the cheapest network to send USDT') that anchors when to use it. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_gas_price or get_bitcoin_fees, leaving the agent to infer boundaries from the network enumeration.

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