radiant_estimate_fee

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and it does well by disclosing the two return values (ElectrumX estimate and min-relay floor), their units, and the intended 'pay max' rule. It does not discuss failure modes or side effects, but 'estimate' signals a read-only operation and the main behavior is covered.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the action and parameter are front-loaded, followed by the return and decision rule. Every phrase 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?

For a one-parameter, read-only estimator, the description covers the parameter's role, the return values, and how to act on them. It omits exact response shape and error behavior, but these are secondary given no output schema and the simple interface. The unit mismatch in the max rule is a minor caveat.

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% and the single 'blocks' parameter is already documented with default, minimum, and maximum. The description only restates the N-blocks idea and adds no new parameter-level detail.

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?

Clearly states the operation ('Estimate transaction fee') and the key scoping input ('confirmation within N blocks'). However, it does not distinguish this from the similarly named sibling radiant_estimate_tx_fee, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 purpose implies a use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, especially the near-duplicate radiant_estimate_tx_fee, and no exclusion criteria.

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