Fee estimate (input token vs DEEP)

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it relies on live on-chain fee rates and the DEEP_USDC mid, and it warns that data may be delayed or wrong. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but the annotations lower the bar.

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 front-loaded with the core fee-estimate behavior and stays compact. The disclaimer and data-caveat sentences are relevant, though slightly boilerplate, and do not bloat the definition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return concept. It does so by explaining that the estimate compares payment in the input token vs DEEP and depends on live rates and the DEEP_USDC mid, while also disclosing freshness limitations. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly describe the response shape.

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 75%, so the schema documents most parameters, including qty, pool, and price defaults. The description adds conceptual meaning for role ('maker or taker') and the fee formula, but it does not expand on pool naming syntax beyond what the schema already states.

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 the DeepBook fee for a fill of qty at price as maker or taker, comparing payment in input token vs DEEP. It is clear enough to distinguish the tool from generic pool-data siblings, but it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or scope boundary.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives such as get_pool_params or get_mid_price. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'Estimated DeepBook fee'.

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