blockchain_fees_evm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the tool performs estimations (read-only) and lists actions, but does not explicitly state that no transaction is signed or submitted. It does add useful context about credits and response headers, which is a behavioral trait. Still, the lack of an explicit read-only/safety disclosure keeps it from a higher score.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose, but the credits section is excessively long and repetitive, listing the same credit values for multiple actions. This violates the principle that every sentence should earn its place. The core action list is useful, but the redundancy makes the description bloated and less scannable.

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 tool has 11 parameters and 5 distinct actions, but the description does not guide the agent on which action to choose for a given scenario. The schema hints at required parameters per action, and the action names are self-explanatory, but without an output schema or action-selection guidance, the description is only minimally complete.

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% and each parameter already includes detailed descriptions, including action-specific requirements. The tool description's action list duplicates some of this information (e.g., which action requires 'data') without adding new meaning beyond the schema. Therefore, it meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Get fee recommendations and estimate gas costs for EVM blockchains.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings (UTXO, XRP) by explicitly scoping to EVM. The subsequent action list enumerates concrete operations, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use this before preparing or signing a transaction to determine appropriate gas parameters.' This gives a concrete context. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, though the sibling tool names (UTXO/XRP) implicitly differentiate by chain type.

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