estimate_onchain_fee

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool 'estimate[s]' a fee, implying a read-only operation, but provides no details on what the estimate is based on, return format, or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool without annotations.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the main verb and resource. It is concise, with no redundant or irrelevant information, achieving maximum efficiency.

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 description is incomplete for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It fails to specify the fee unit (e.g., satoshis), mention whether the estimate is for the total fee or fee rate, or distinguish it from estimate_onchain_fee_usd, which is a sibling. Given the many similar payment-related tools, a more detailed description is needed.

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 schema already documents wallet_id, address, and amount with descriptions (75% coverage). The description adds no parameter-specific information and does not clarify the speed enum (FAST/MEDIUM/SLOW) which lacks a description. However, the schema is mostly self-explanatory, so the description's lack of contribution is not critical.

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 on-chain transaction fees for Bitcoin, using a specific verb ('estimate') and resource ('on-chain transaction fee'). It distinguishes from lightning fee tools but does not differentiate from the sibling estimate_onchain_fee_usd, which likely has a different output currency.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like estimate_lightning_fee or estimate_onchain_fee_usd. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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