radiant_estimate_tx_fee

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Pure arithmetic — no network call,' which tells the agent the operation is deterministic, side-effect-free, and requires no network state. This is valuable context, though it could further clarify edge-case behavior or return format.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key behavioral notes. Every sentence earns its place: the main function, the no-network-call guarantee, the usage context, and the OP_RETURN capability. No filler or redundancy.

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 low-complexity arithmetic tool, the description covers the key aspects: what it computes, the unit (satoshis), the main inputs, and one important extension (OP_RETURN). There is no output schema, but the description's phrasing implies the return is the estimated fee in satoshis. It could be more explicit about how fee_per_byte is applied, but the schema carries that detail.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds a bit of meaning by connecting OP_RETURN outputs to 'token minting' and framing the tool around input/output counts, but it does not substantially go beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Estimate transaction fee in satoshis') and specifies the inputs ('given input/output counts'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings through 'Pure arithmetic — no network call' and the explicit OP_RETURN support, separating it from tools like radiant_estimate_fee or network-dependent operations.

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 gives a clear usage context: 'Use this to budget before building a transaction.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the use case is concrete and unambiguous, which is sufficient for a focused estimation utility.

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