estimate_lightning_fee

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. The word 'estimate' suggests non-mutating, but the description provides no specifics about rate limits, permissions, or other behavioral traits.

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 a single, concise sentence that clearly conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words or repetition. It earns its place with zero waste.

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?

The tool is simple with two fully documented parameters, but since there is no output schema, the description should explain what the returned fee estimate looks like (e.g., units, format). It also doesn't clarify how this differs from estimate_lightning_fee_no_amount, leaving a small gap in contextual completeness.

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 both parameters (wallet_id and payment_request) already documented in the input schema. The description itself adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool estimates Lightning network fees for paying an invoice, with a specific verb ('estimate') and resource ('Lightning network fee'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool estimate_lightning_fee_no_amount by specifying 'for paying an invoice', implying it handles invoices with an amount.

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 implies when to use the tool (before paying an invoice, to estimate the fee) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to estimate_lightning_fee_no_amount. There are no alternative tool names or exclusions mentioned, so usage context is only implied.

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