get_fee_forecast

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions 'paid' and 'forecast'. It fails to clarify that the tool takes no input parameters, how the output is organized, or any rate limits. The phrase 'by confirmation target' is unexplained as an output grouping.

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 front-loaded with the core action and resource. It is concise and contains no unnecessary 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 and no annotations, the description should explain the forecast's output structure (e.g., list of targets, fee rates). It also does not address the empty parameter list or differentiate from similar forecast tools, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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 parameters, which usually earns a baseline of 4. However, the description's 'by confirmation target' implies a parameter that does not exist, potentially confusing agents. The description adds no actual parameter semantics and instead introduces ambiguity.

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 forecast of Bitcoin transaction fees, which is a specific resource and differentiates from current-fee and Ethereum tools. However, 'by confirmation target' is ambiguous given the empty input schema, and the relationship to get_latest_forecast is not clarified.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_latest_forecast, get_current_fees, or run_custom_forecast. The 'paid' hint implies a cost, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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