get_fees

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the mempool source and cost per call but does not disclose rate limits, authentication requirements (beyond L402 mode), error behavior, or response details. Significant gaps remain.

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 concise with one sentence plus a cost note. It is front-loaded and has no wasted words. A slightly more structured format could improve scannability, but it is already efficient.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers core functionality and cost. However, it lacks details on output format, prerequisites (API key or L402 preimage/macaroon), and error handling, leaving some gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (preimage, macaroon) for L402 mode. The description adds no extra meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score.

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 provides Bitcoin fee estimates with trend analysis for specific timeframes (next-block, 30-min, 1-hour) from a full node mempool. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'predict_fees' or 'fee_quote'.

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 when to use the tool (need Bitcoin fee estimates) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The cost indication is helpful but lacks guidance on alternatives like 'predict_fees' or 'fee_quote'.

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