estimate_deployment_cost

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies that the tool does not deploy ('before actually deploying') but does not explicitly state it is read-only or has no side effects. It also doesn't mention any external dependencies or computation specifics, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 immediately states the purpose. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. It is concise while still conveying the core functionality and timing.

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 a simple interface (3 alternative params, no output schema). The description effectively communicates that it estimates deployment cost, which is the main purpose. However, it does not mention what the return value looks like (e.g., numeric cost in tokens/currency), which would be useful. Given the low complexity, this is a minor omission, and the description is otherwise complete for guiding selection and invocation.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter, including noting they are alternatives. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it does not go above the baseline. It does not clarify when to prefer wasm_path over wasm_base64, but the schema's 'Alternative' notes help.

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 identifies the verb 'Calculate' and the resource 'storage cost for deploying a WASM contract'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like deploy_contract and initialize_contract by focusing on cost estimation rather than actual deployment.

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 phrase 'before actually deploying' provides a clear temporal context for when to use the tool. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the sibling list includes deployment-related tools, making it obvious that this is a pre-deployment step. It could be more explicit by saying 'use this instead of deploy_contract to estimate costs without committing', but the current wording is adequate.

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