dero_get_gas_estimate

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

The description adds that this is a pre-flight check with nothing submitted, complementing the readOnlyHint annotation. It also discloses the output contract ({ gascompute, gasstorage, status }) in the absence of an output schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Organized with scannable bold sections and bullets; every sentence contributes. Slightly longer than necessary, but the one-of constraint and output detail justify the length.

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?

For a no-output-schema tool with a non-obvious one-of parameter constraint, the description covers action, trigger conditions, parameter semantics, and return shape. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without opening additional references.

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?

Although schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, the prose adds a critical one-of requirement for transfers/sc/sc_rpc that the schema (all optional) would otherwise hide. It also clarifies sc's role as DVM-BASIC source, sc_rpc's {name,datatype,value} shape, and the preference for passing signer.

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?

States a precise action—estimate gas for transfers, SC deploys, or SC invokes—and names the underlying DERO.GetGasEstimate endpoint. It clearly distinguishes from pure read/chain tools, but does not contrast with the sibling estimate_deploy_cost, which overlaps in the deploy-cost use case.

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?

Gives an explicit 'When to call' section: before wallet-side transfers/SC invokes to size fees, or when explaining deploy costs, and prefers dero_docs_search for user education. It lacks a 'when not to use' or explicit alternative tool mention (e.g., estimate_deploy_cost), so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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