estimate_transaction_cost

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'estimates' cost, implying a non-destructive, non-committal operation. However, it does not disclose whether the estimate is based on real-time data, how often it updates, or any assumptions made. The description is minimally transparent but lacks behavioral depth.

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 efficiently encapsulates the tool's purpose, including the list of actions and the tier option. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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 explains the input parameters well but omits any description of the output format or behavior (e.g., returns a numeric USD value, may be based on current gas price). Without an output schema, the agent is left guessing about the return value. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 the schema already documents each parameter (action enum, gas_units, tier with default). The description restates the action examples and tier concept but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 clearly states the verb ('estimate'), the resource ('USD gas cost'), and specifies the scope ('specific Ethereum mainnet action' with examples and custom option). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'get_current_gas' (which likely provides raw gas price) and 'get_eth_price' (which provides ETH price).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. For example, it doesn't clarify that this tool should be used for cost estimation of a specific transaction while 'best_time_to_transact' is for timing or 'get_l2_gas' for layer-2 costs. There is no context about prerequisites or limitations.

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