get_eth_gas_forecast

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is paid and produces a forecast with a trend label, but it does not explain the return format, error behavior, or consequences of invalid inputs. This is useful but incomplete for a tool without annotations or output schema.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The first packs the core purpose, method, and output elements; the second notes cost. Information is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the essential aspects: forecast direction, unit (gwei), methodology (EIP-1559), output addition (trend label), and cost. However, with no output schema, it could benefit from detailing the response structure. Still, it is largely complete for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'blocks' parameter, including range (1-30) and default (5). The description's mention of 'projected N blocks ahead' aligns with the schema but adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what is already documented. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it provides a forward Ethereum base-fee forecast in gwei, projecting N blocks ahead via the EIP-1559 rule with a trend label. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_eth_gas_current (current fees) and get_fee_forecast (generic forecast). The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: use when needing an Ethereum base-fee forecast for future blocks. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_latest_forecast or run_custom_forecast, nor does it state exclusions. The 'Paid' note hints at cost but does not guide decision-making.

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