estimate_inscription_fee

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the return shape (commit fee, reveal fee, total), which is genuinely useful since no output schema exists. It does not state whether a wallet/signature is required, whether the estimate is binding, or how fees are sourced beyond the schema's 'defaults to current medium fee'.

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 first two sentences are tight and front-loaded with the purpose and return values. The closing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities' sentence is unrelated cross-promotion that does not earn its place in an estimation tool's 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?

For a simple read-only estimator with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, inputs, and the returned breakdown, which substitutes for the absent output schema. The only meaningful gap is its silence on the sibling child-inscription estimator and on when the estimate should precede an inscribe call.

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 all three parameters are already documented. The description's only parameter remark — 'Content should be provided as base64-encoded string' — merely restates the contentBase64 schema description and adds no new meaning. 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Calculate the total cost (in satoshis) for creating an inscription,' and even names the cost components it returns. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling estimate_child_inscription_fee, leaving the agent to guess which estimator applies to a child inscription.

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 by the phrase 'for creating an inscription' — an agent can infer it is a pre-flight estimate. No explicit when-to-use, exclusions, or routing to the sibling fee estimator is given, and the closing tip advertises an unrelated tool rather than guiding tool selection.

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