Estimate gas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by mentioning that the tool returns the current base fee, which helps the agent understand output beyond the name. It does not contradict 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?

The description is two clear sentences, with the primary function and key output stated first, followed by network details. No fluff or redundant phrasing; it is front-loaded and efficient.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description explains the main return (gas estimate and base fee) and covers network selection details. It does not specify the exact output format, but given the annotations cover safety and the function is simple, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call correctly.

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 parameters are already documented. The description lists the parameters (to, data, value, from) but uses 'value' instead of the schema's 'value_wei', which is a minor inconsistency. It adds little beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline without significant added value.

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 states that the tool estimates gas for a transaction, explicitly listing the relevant parameters (to, data, value, from), and notes it also returns the current base fee. This is specific and differentiates it from sibling tools like avax_call_contract or avax_get_transaction.

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 usage when an agent needs a gas estimate and a base fee for budgeting, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use this tool. There is no mention of 'use X instead' or exclusions, so guidance is only implied.

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