Estimate Cost

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only calculation with no side effects, which is transparent. It could explicitly state that no resources are purchased or modified, but the current description is sufficient for a simple estimation tool.

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 sentence that front-loads the main action. It is efficient, though it could be slightly reworded to include key parameter defaults for completeness. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, so the description should explain return values. It mentions 'get the energy needed and cost in TRX,' which gives a general idea but lacks detail (e.g., whether it returns a single value or both, units). For a simple estimation, this may be adequate, but it could be more explicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds that inputs include transaction count and type, but does not elaborate on defaults or e-num constraints beyond what the schema provides. Thus, it adds minimal additional meaning, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 tool's purpose: 'Calculate the cost of purchasing TRON Energy or Bandwidth.' It specifies the verb (calculate), the resource (cost of energy/bandwidth), and the inputs (transaction count and type). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like buy_energy or get_prices, which involve actual purchases or price lookups.

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 context for when to use the tool: when you need to estimate cost before purchasing. It mentions providing transaction count and type. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, leaving room for improvement in guiding the agent to choose this tool over siblings.

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