Calculate Minimum Fee

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return unit (lovelace) but doesn't explain the fee formula basis, protocol param dependencies, or any failure modes.

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 efficient, front-loading the purpose, then listing args and return value. It's somewhat redundant with the schema's parameter descriptions but structurally clear.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (read-only, idempotent calculation), the description is adequate but doesn't explain what protocol parameters file should contain or how the fee relates to witness count. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is reasonable – it's complete enough but not rich.

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 both the schema and description document all three parameters identically without added value. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Calculate the minimum fee for a transaction.' Unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling tools like cardano_transaction_build or cardano_transaction_sign.

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 implies this is a fee calculation step in transaction workflows but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or references to related siblings like cardano_transaction_build.

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