estimate_energy

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds the key behavioral detail that the call is simulated, meaning no on-chain transaction occurs. This goes beyond the annotations and provides valuable context.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It conveys the essential information with no wasted words, making it highly concise and appropriately sized for a tool of this simplicity.

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 that the tool is a read-only simulation with a self-explanatory schema, the description covers the main purpose effectively. It does not describe the return format (e.g., units of energy), but the absence of an output schema and the simple nature of the tool make this acceptable.

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 all six parameters are already described. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable per the baseline for high coverage.

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 estimates energy consumption for a smart contract call, with the parenthetical 'simulation' specifying that it's a simulation rather than an actual execution. This distinguishes it from related tools like write_contract or update_energy_limit.

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 is used when you want to estimate energy before making a smart contract call, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives. No direct alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, though the context is reasonably clear.

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