aptos_estimate_gas

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

The description provides no behavioral details beyond the bare function. With no annotations to indicate read-only status, rate limits, or other traits, the burden falls on the description, which only states the basic action. It does not disclose whether this returns a fee estimate, a per-gas-unit price, or any network-specific nuances.

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 at five words, with no redundant or extraneous content. It gets straight to the point and is easy to read.

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 lack of an output schema and no parameter constraints, the description should at least clarify the return value or chain context. It fails to mention Aptos or how this differs from generic gas tools, making it incomplete for an agent operating in a large tool ecosystem with many similar functions.

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?

The input schema is empty (0 parameters), so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it also does not add any clarification about what the absence of parameters means (e.g., whether this returns the current network gas price without needing transaction details). This is sufficient given the schema.

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 'Estimate gas price for transactions' clearly identifies a verb (estimate) and a resource (gas price for transactions). However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'estimate_gas', 'get_gas_price', or 'sui_get_gas_price', which could lead to ambiguity about chain-specific behavior.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it is Aptos-specific, nor does it differentiate between estimating for a specific transaction and just fetching the current network gas price. An agent would have no contextual clues about the appropriate invocation scenario.

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