get_recommended_fees

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

The annotations already signal a safe read-only call, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds useful context: the call requires a backend and the optional network parameter overrides the server's network. These are modest but genuine behavioral details, so a mid score is appropriate.

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 short, front-loaded with the primary function, and contains no filler. The args section is compact and directly maps to 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?

For a one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and parameter semantics. It lacks sibling-routing guidance, but that does not block correct invocation, so it is largely 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 coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly explains the only parameter: 'network: Override the server's network for this call.' This adds real meaning beyond the bare string/null schema and is sufficient for a single optional parameter.

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 concrete verb and object – 'Get economy, normal and priority fee rates' – so an agent immediately knows the tool returns categorized recommended fee rates. This distinguishes it from generic siblings like estimate_fee or get_mempool_info, though it does not explicitly name the closest alternative.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as estimate_fee or get_fee_histogram. The only guidance is 'Needs a backend', which is a prerequisite rather than a usage rule, so the agent gets little help with routing.

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