get_mempool_info

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 dependency ('Needs a backend') and the network-override behavior, but it does not explain failure behavior or what happens if no backend is available. The added behavioral context is modest but not absent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds a necessary prerequisite and a one-line parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

There is an output schema, so return values do not need to be described. For a simple one-optional-parameter read tool, the description covers the purpose, the prerequisite, and the parameter semantics. The only notable gap is guidance on how to handle a missing backend or why this tool is preferable to mempool/fee siblings.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It does: 'network: Override the server's network for this call' explains what the parameter actually does beyond the bare anyOf string/null schema. It could enumerate valid network values, but this is a meaningful compensation for the schema gap.

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 ('Get') and a clear resource ('mempool size, vsize and minimum fee rate'). This is distinct from the sibling get_mempool_entry, which targets individual mempool entries, so an agent can tell them apart without opening the schema.

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 only usage hint is 'Needs a backend.' It does not say when to prefer this over related siblings like get_mempool_entry, estimate_fee, or get_fee_histogram, nor does it state any exclusions or conditions beyond backend availability.

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