get_current_fees

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool is free, requires no wallet, and uses a full node estimator, which are key operational traits. It does not mention rate limits or return structure, but for a simple read-only fee query, these details are sufficient.

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 two concise sentences that convey all essential information without fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately adds value with the free and no-wallet clarification.

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?

Given the low complexity of a zero-parameter read-only tool and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (fee rates by target, units), where it comes from, and access requirements. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema provides all necessary information. The description adds contextual meaning (what the data represents) but does not need to explain parameters. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate given the absence of parameters.

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 returns current recommended Bitcoin fee rates in sat/vB by confirmation target, sourced from a full node estimator. It uses specific, informative language that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_fee_forecast (future forecast) and get_pricing (pricing).

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when current recommended fee rates are needed, emphasizing it is free and requires no wallet. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the mention of 'current' and 'recommended' implies a direct use case, and the sibling context offers alternatives.

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