Deploy fee, $THREE holder tier, and the live buyback ledger

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description reinforces these by stating 'Read-only: it moves nothing and needs no key.' It also adds useful context: the data comes from the public three.ws ledger and includes live market/buyback figures, which is beyond what annotations alone provide. No contradiction.

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 three sentences and front-loaded with a clear headline. It enumerates outputs compactly and provides usage instructions without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, and the construct is easy to scan.

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 complexity (returns multiple distinct data points) and lack of output schema, the description sufficiently explains what will be returned: fee schedule, balance, tier, wallet, and market/buyback figures. It also covers parameter behavior and read-only nature, making it complete for an agent to decide when and how to call it.

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 100%: both wallet and network have descriptive strings, including defaults and behavior (devnet always free). The description reiterates the wallet default and adds the 'omit it' wording, but this is already in the schema. Since the schema fully documents parameters, the description adds minimal value beyond what structured data already provides.

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 states a clear purpose: it tells what the next on-chain deploy costs and why, listing specific outputs (deploy-fee schedule, $THREE balance, tier, wallet, market/buyback figures). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_onchain_agent or send_signed_transaction, which focus on different operations.

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 clear usage context: it explains how to pass a wallet to price a specific payer or omit it to use the configured signer. It also states it is read-only and needs no key, implying it is for inquiry before deployment. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over siblings or when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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