compare_fee_estimates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates key constraints (fixed 140 vB calculation basis, categorized by urgency labels, comparative format), but omits details like specific urgency tiers, data sources, or safety characteristics (e.g., read-only status).

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 single-sentence description is optimally front-loaded with the action verb and efficiently packs essential behavioral details (side-by-side, urgency labels, 140 vB) without redundancy.

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 tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description appropriately focuses on behavioral specifics (140 vB assumption) rather than return values. It sufficiently covers the necessary context for a stateless comparison tool.

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 contains zero parameters, which establishes a baseline score of 4 per the rubric. The description appropriately requires no additional parameter clarification.

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 specific verbs ('Compare') and resources ('fee estimates'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_fee_estimates' or 'estimate_smart_fee' by specifying 'side-by-side' presentation, 'urgency labels', and the fixed '140 vB' transaction size assumption.

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?

While the description implies a comparison use case through 'side-by-side', it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like 'get_fee_estimates' (raw data) or 'estimate_transaction_cost' (custom sizes), nor does it state when not to use it.

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