estimate_lightning_fee_no_amount

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'estimate' implies it merely calculates a fee without sending payment, but it does not explicitly state this or describe any side effects, required permissions, or return format. It provides the core action but lacks broader behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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, but the description omits the return value (presumably a fee estimate) and doesn't clarify that the amount parameter is required specifically because the invoice lacks one. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, this prevents a higher score, though the description is not entirely incomplete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the payment_request is an open (no-amount) invoice, which explains why the amount parameter is required. This contextual addition goes beyond the schema descriptions, elevating the score to 4.

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's function: to estimate Lightning network fees for open (no-amount) invoices. The verb 'estimate' and resource 'fee' are specific, and the qualifier 'no-amount' distinguishes it from the sibling estimate_lightning_fee tool, which presumably handles amount-based invoices.

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 clearly implies the tool is for invoices without a fixed amount, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using estimate_lightning_fee for invoices with an amount, so it falls short of a 5.

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