estimate_onchain_fee_usd

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'estimate' which implies no actual transaction is sent, but it does not explicitly confirm non-mutating behavior, nor does it mention any prerequisites, auth requirements, or that the fee depends on the 'speed' parameter. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 conveys the core purpose with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a tool whose parameters are already well-documented in the schema.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain that the fee varies by the 'speed' parameter, nor does it hint at the return format (e.g., a fee amount). Given the existence of sibling tools like estimate_onchain_fee, the description also fails to explicitly differentiate its behavioral context beyond the USD wallet qualifier. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 75% (three of four parameters have descriptions). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already documents wallet_id, address, and amount well. The speed parameter lacks a description but has an enum and default, so the schema handles it adequately. Thus, the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding, and a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'estimate' with the resource 'on-chain transaction fee' and scopes it to 'sending from USD wallet'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like estimate_onchain_fee (likely for BTC) and estimate_lightning_fee, as the 'USD wallet' qualifier makes the resource unique.

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 clear context: this tool is for estimating fees when sending from a USD wallet. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusions, but the 'from USD wallet' phrasing implies the relevant use case, which is sufficient for a 4.

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