eth_estimateGas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Generates and returns an estimate,' implying a read-only, non-destructive operation, but doesn't clarify if it simulates transaction execution, requires network access, has rate limits, or what happens with invalid inputs. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 ('Generates and returns an estimate of how much gas is necessary') that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It earns its place by clearly stating the tool's function, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the estimate is for (e.g., a transaction), how it's generated (e.g., via simulation), or what the return value looks like (e.g., a gas amount in hex). With no output schema and minimal behavioral context, the description fails to provide enough information for effective tool use.

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 has 100% description coverage, with each parameter documented (e.g., 'data' as 'Data to send (hex string)'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without param info in the description, as the schema adequately covers semantics.

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 the purpose ('Generates and returns an estimate of how much gas is necessary'), which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('Generates and returns') and resource ('estimate of how much gas'), but doesn't distinguish it from siblings like eth_gasPrice (which returns current gas price) or eth_call (which executes a call without sending a transaction). The description is adequate but lacks specificity about what transaction or operation is being estimated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like eth_call (for simulating calls) or eth_gasPrice (for current gas prices), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts (e.g., before sending a transaction). Without any usage context, the agent must infer from the tool name and schema alone.

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