estimateGasCost

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 estimates gas cost but doesn't explain how it works (e.g., uses current gas prices, network data), potential limitations (e.g., accuracy, network dependencies), or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 that clearly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action and output, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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 of gas estimation (involving network data and currency conversion) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the estimation method, return format, or potential inaccuracies, leaving gaps for the agent to infer behavior. This is inadequate for a tool with no structured support.

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, so the schema fully documents all parameters (chainId, gasUnits, maxFeePerGas, maxPriorityFeePerGas). The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage context. This meets the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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: 'Estimate the gas cost for a transaction in both native token and USD.' It specifies the action (estimate), resource (gas cost), and output format (both native token and USD). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'estimateGas' or 'getGasPrice,' which appear to be related but distinct.

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 sibling tools like 'estimateGas' or 'getGasPrice,' nor does it specify prerequisites, such as needing transaction details or network selection. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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