get_fee_estimates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It provides useful behavioral context by specifying the exact confirmation targets (1/3/6/25/144 blocks) that will be returned, but it omits safety profile information (read-only status, idempotency) that would clarify this is a safe data retrieval operation.

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, efficient sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action ('Get fee rate estimates') and immediately follows with the specific configuration details (confirmation targets and units), delivering maximum information density.

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 (reducing the need to describe return values), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the key behavioral detail (confirmation targets). It could be improved by noting the data source or freshness, but it is sufficient for invocation.

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, establishing a baseline score of 4. The description references the confirmation targets (1/3/6/25/144) which effectively describes the structure of the data returned, adding contextual value beyond the empty parameter schema without needing to document input arguments.

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 specific resource (fee rate estimates), the exact confirmation targets (1/3/6/25/144 blocks), and the unit of measurement (sat/vB). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like `estimate_smart_fee`, `get_fee_recommendation`, or `compare_fee_estimates`.

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 select this tool versus the four sibling fee-related tools (`estimate_smart_fee`, `get_fee_recommendation`, `compare_fee_estimates`, `estimate_transaction_cost`). The agent is given no criteria to determine which fee tool is appropriate for a given user query.

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