estimate_child_inscription_fee

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the estimate models the extra parent UTXO input and parent return output in the reveal transaction, and that the result is in satoshis. It does not state prerequisites (must the parent inscription exist / be owned), whether the call touches the network or is purely local, or how the returned figure is broken down.

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 core two sentences are front-loaded and dense. However, the third sentence is an unrelated cross-promotional tip that does not help an agent select or invoke this tool, so not every sentence 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 3-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the return units (satoshis) and cost composition but omits prerequisites and call ordering relative to inscribe_child_reveal. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent must guess around.

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% with per-parameter descriptions. The description restates contentBase64 as base64 and adds nothing beyond the schema; it says nothing extra about feeRate defaulting behavior or contentType constraints. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

A specific verb and resource — calculate the satoshi cost of a child inscription — with the distinguishing qualifier 'child' and the exact cost components (parent UTXO input, parent return output) named. This lets an agent separate it from estimate_inscription_fee without opening either schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a pre-flight estimator for inscribe_child / inscribe_child_reveal, but the description never states when to call it, whether it precedes reveal, or why one would pick it over estimate_inscription_fee. The appended 'earning_opportunities' tip is unrelated promotion and offers no selection guidance.

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