get_fee_estimate

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail: it queries the Counterparty node first and falls back to mempool.space, clarifying the data source and fallback logic. This goes beyond the annotation flags and helps set expectations.

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 short sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the core function, the second covers fallback and usage. Well-structured and immediate.

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 tool with one optional parameter and clear annotations, the description covers the necessary context: purpose, fallback behavior, and how values should be consumed. Without an output schema, a bit more detail about the return shape might help, but for its simplicity this is sufficient.

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 only parameter, conf_target, is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds a crucial qualifier that this parameter is 'Only used for Counterparty node estimate', which informs the agent when the fallback is active. This enriches the schema's default-3 description.

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 'Get current Bitcoin fee rates in sat/vB', a clear verb-object statement. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which focus on fee estimation. The wording is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly directs the agent to 'Use the returned values directly as sat_per_vbyte in compose tools', providing a clear when-to-use context. It does not name alternative tools, but no sibling serves a similar purpose, so the guidance is sufficient.

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