Estimate Inscription Fee

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context such as the exact service fee breakdown (396 sats across 10 addresses), the miner fee floor, and the return object fields (estimatedTxSize, minerFee, serviceFee, totalCost, breakdown). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured with a clear one-sentence purpose, a list of fee breakdowns, Args, and Returns. Although the fee breakdown is somewhat detailed, it is directly relevant to understanding the calculation. Every element serves a purpose, but the breakdown list could be more compact if needed. It is appropriately front-loaded.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description specifies the exact return fields (estimatedTxSize, minerFee, serviceFee, totalCost, breakdown), making the tool's behavior transparent. It also covers the fee structure and defaults. Given the simple two-parameter input and read-only nature, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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 the baseline is 3. The description repeats the parameter names and adds 'default: 0.15 = 150 sats/KB, miner fee floor 200 sats' for feePerByte, which provides extra interpretive context not in the schema. contentSize is described similarly to the schema. Overall, the description adds marginal value but does not significantly exceed what the schema already provides.

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 opens with 'Calculate fee estimate for an inscription,' which clearly states the tool's function as a fee calculator using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ordnet_inscribe_prepare or ordnet_tx_simulate, which handle execution or simulation. The title reinforces the purpose.

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—e.g., to estimate inscription fees before inscribing—by providing a fee breakdown and return structure, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ordnet_tx_simulate or ordnet_price. There is no clear when-not or mention of alternative tools, so the 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.