estimate_batch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool estimates costs, implying a read-only operation but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, no funds are moved, or that multiple calls are safe. This is adequate but lacks explicit assurance of non-destructiveness.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the purpose and usage. No unnecessary words or repetition; every sentence adds value.

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?

While inputs are well-covered by the schema (100% coverage), the description lacks any mention of the output format (e.g., what the estimate returns). For a tool that produces a result, this is a gap. However, given that output schema is absent, the description could have compensated by summarizing return values.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema; it only reinforces the usage context. Therefore, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'Estimate gas cost and total ETH needed for a batch send operation.' It uses a specific verb (estimate) and resource (gas cost, total ETH) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (batch_send_eth, batch_send_erc20, get_batch_info) by targeting pre-execution cost verification.

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 explicitly says 'Use before executing to verify costs,' which gives clear context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, though the sibling list implies alternatives for actual sending and information retrieval.

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