ucai_estimate_gas_sponsorship

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

No annotations are available, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, how the estimate is computed, or what the return value looks like. The parenthetical '(free)' is ambiguous and does not clarify expected behavior.

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 a single concise sentence that is easy to scan and front-loaded with the main verb. The parenthetical '(free)' adds slight ambiguity but does not harm the overall structure.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the returned cost estimate looks like, how it relates to the sponsorship flow (e.g., ucai_sponsor_gas), or any prerequisites or limitations.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific context, but the schema already defines all parameters (contractAddress, functionName, args, abi, network) sufficiently for invoking the tool.

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 with a specific verb ('Estimate') and resource ('gas sponsorship cost'). The phrase 'sponsor gas' differentiates it from generic gas estimation tools like estimate_gas or aptos_estimate_gas, and aligns with the sibling ucai_sponsor_gas.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it should be used before ucai_sponsor_gas, nor does it exclude cases where regular gas estimation (e.g., estimate_gas) would be more appropriate.

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