estimate_fee

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a useful behavioral note that a backend is required, and clarifies that network overrides the server's network. It does not describe error behavior (e.g., what happens if target_blocks is out of range) or the nature of the estimate, but the output schema likely covers return structure. Overall, adequate given the 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 two compact sentences followed by a clean Args block. The purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter documentation is structured and scannable. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 is simple: two optional parameters, both documented, and an output schema exists to explain return values. The description is complete for making the call correctly. It is missing only usage context relative to sibling tools, but that gap is already accounted for in the usage guidelines dimension.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by documenting both parameters: target_blocks includes its range (1 to 1008) and purpose, and network explains it overrides the server's network. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, which only contains titles and defaults.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Estimate the fee rate to confirm within a number of blocks.' This clearly states what the tool does and its core parameter. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_recommended_fees or get_fee_histogram, which also involve fee estimation, so it misses the differentiation criterion.

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 almost no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'Needs a backend' is a prerequisite, not a usage condition. It never mentions get_recommended_fees or get_fee_histogram as alternatives or states under what circumstances an agent should pick this tool instead.

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