kaspa_fee_estimate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It mentions 'current' (implying a read-only snapshot) but does not disclose whether the data is cached, how often it updates, or if it requires network access. The return structure is unspecified.

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 very short but includes a cryptic fragment 'Paid (~$0.00015)' that may be confusing or irrelevant. It could be more concise by omitting this or explaining it. The structure is front-loaded but not optimally clear.

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 no output schema and simple tool, the description should explain the return format (e.g., list of buckets, JSON structure). It fails to do so, leaving a gap in completeness for an agent expecting to parse results.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema coverage is 100%, so the description need not add parameter details. Baseline score of 4 applies as per rules, and the description does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema declares.

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 tool provides 'Current Kaspa mainnet feerate buckets' in specific units, which is clear enough. However, the phrase 'Paid (~$0.00015)' is ambiguous and could be confused with a cost rather than a fee estimate, slightly diminishing clarity.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like kaspa_balance or kaspa_network. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or context, leaving the agent without decision support.

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