get_broadcast_timing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool is 'Paid', which is an important trait, and explains that it returns expected sat/vB savings and optionally total sats if a vsize is passed. Missing are details about authentication, rate limits, or whether the tool has any side effects, but the core behavior is disclosed.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Best time to broadcast') and includes all essential components: inputs, decision logic, output, and cost. No unnecessary words or repetitions.

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 relatively simple advisory tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does, what it needs, what it returns, and that it is paid. While it doesn't cover error cases or rate limits, these are not critical for this tool type given the robust schema and clear purpose.

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 100%, so both parameters (vsize and target) are already well documented. The description adds context that vsize is used to compute total sats, but this is a minor addition. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already provides sufficient parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: determining the best time to broadcast a Bitcoin transaction based on live mempool pressure and fee forecast. It specifies the decision ('now or wait') and the output (expected sat/vB savings, plus total sats if vsize is provided). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_fee_forecast or get_current_fees, which focus on fee rates rather than timing advice.

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 implies the tool should be used when a user has mempool pressure and fee forecast data and wants to decide whether to send a transaction immediately or wait. It also notes that the tool is 'Paid', which is a key usage consideration. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use this tool relative to other fee or mempool tools.

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