estimate_onchain_fee_usd

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that this is an estimate but does not clarify that it is read-only, that it does not send funds, what permissions or preconditions are required, or whether the quote expires.

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 with no wasted words. It immediately states the operation and scope.

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 four-parameter fee estimator with complete schema coverage, the description identifies the operation adequately. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves gaps around the return unit, quote validity, and explicit sibling-tool selection.

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 four parameters are already documented, including amount in cents, Bitcoin address, USD wallet ID, and the FAST/MEDIUM/SLOW speed enum. The description adds only that the source wallet is a USD wallet, which reinforces wallet_id but adds no further parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Estimate'), resource ('on-chain transaction fee'), and scope ('from USD wallet'). This distinguishes it from sibling estimators such as estimate_onchain_fee and estimate_lightning_fee.

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 it is used when estimating a fee before sending from a USD wallet, but it gives no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative routing. The agent must infer that this is not the Lightning fee estimator and not the generic on-chain estimator.

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