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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. '查询' implies a read-only operation, and the description lists output categories (per-byte fee, tiered rates, quantized mask), which adds behavioral context beyond an empty schema. However, it does not state absence of side effects, permissions, rate limits, or return latency—minimum adequate disclosure for a query tool.

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 two clearly bracketed sections: purpose first, then when-to-use. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundancy or 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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies purpose, when-to-use, and the main return categories. It does not explain the technical term '量化掩码' or provide a full return format, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 parameter semantics are not applicable. Per the rules, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning.

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 (查询) and resource (门罗币手续费估算), and details the fee types (字节费率、分档费率低/中/高、量化掩码). The explicit '门罗币' distinguishes it from the sibling btc_fee_estimates (Bitcoin). An agent can identify it as the XMR fee estimator without opening any schema.

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?

Includes an explicit 【何时用】 section with sample user phrasing: 'XMR 转账要多少手续费 / 现在费率多少'. This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not name alternatives or when-not to use it, but the sibling tools are clearly differentiated by currency.

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