eterna_fee_estimate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the estimate is based on a published flat schedule (deterministic, not live-quoted), that no credentials are required (no auth), and that the result includes EHX Payback credits. It does not mention potential edge cases (e.g., fee changes) but covers the key behavioral traits.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and every clause earns its place: what it estimates, the key inputs, the fee schedule, the extra EHX Payback output, and the no-credentials note. No redundancy or padding.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. An agent knows the required parameter, the optional parameter (with schema default), and the calculation basis. The only minor gap is the precise return shape (single figure vs. breakdown), but the mention of fees and EHX Payback implies a structured result.

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 base score is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying the actual fee rates (0.014% maker / 0.035% taker) and by clarifying that the maker/taker mix is the input, directly connecting the parameters to the calculation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Estimate') and resource ('monthly trading fees on Eterna Hybrid Exchange'), and adds distinctive details: EHX Payback credit and the flat fee schedule. This differentiates it from siblings like eterna_compare_fees, which presumably compares fee structs across venues.

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 clearly implies the use case: when a user wants fee projections for a given volume and maker/taker mix. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous given the sibling set, and 'No credentials needed' provides a helpful practical cue.

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