estimate_gas

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool 'estimates' gas, which strongly implies it does not broadcast the transaction, but it does not explicitly confirm the read-only nature or mention that the estimate is not an execution. The description also omits potential side effects, error conditions, or how the network parameter influences the estimate, leaving key safety aspects undisclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose without any filler or repetition. Every word contributes to the meaning, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with a self-explanatory name and well-documented schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description should indicate what the estimate returns (e.g., gas limit or gas price) and how parameters affect the result. It provides none of this, leaving the agent to guess the return format, range, or potential errors. Given the tool's complexity (four parameters, estimation logic), the description is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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?

Since the schema provides descriptions for all four parameters (to, data, value, network), the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying that value is in wei or that network defaults to testnet. The tool description does not need to repeat schema details, but it also offers no additional parameter context.

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 identifies the tool's function with a specific verb ('Estimate') and resource ('gas for a transaction'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_balance and get_transaction. The phrase 'on 0G network' adds necessary context, though it is somewhat redundant given the tool name. Overall, it is immediately obvious what this tool does and how it differs from its siblings.

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 usage when preparing or analyzing a transaction, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as valid recipient address or network selection. There is no guidance on exclusions or complementary tools, so the agent must infer the intended context from the name and schema.

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