Get Bitcoin fee estimates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It accurately indicates a read-only operation ('Return') and specifies output categories, but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or potential side effects. For this simple getter, this is adequate and provides full disclosure of the tool's behavior.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, no wasted words. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

The description fully specifies the return values (sat/vB with five categories), which is sufficient for a zero-param tool with no output schema. It doesn't need to explain parameters or side effects, making it complete for its 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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description correctly focuses on the output rather than parameters, so it provides no additional parameter semantics needed. This aligns with the baseline for a tool with no 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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the exact resource ('Bitcoin transaction fee estimates') with units (sat/vB) and categories (fastest, half hour, hour, economy, minimum). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle other Bitcoin data types like blocks, runes, or inscriptions.

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 usage—if you need current fee estimates, use this tool—but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention exclusions. Sibling tools are about different resources, so context is clear, but explicit guidance is absent.

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