celo_estimate_gas

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so effectively. It discloses key behavioral traits: the data source (https://explorer.bitquery.io/celo_rc1/gas), cost implications (2 credits per API call), and critical usage details (gas price returned in wei, must convert to Gwei for transactions). No contradictions exist.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential details in a logical flow. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action and cost, the second specifies the data source, and the third provides critical usage notes. It is efficiently structured with zero waste.

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 tool's complexity (gas estimation with unit conversion), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, cost, data source, and key behavioral notes. A minor gap is the lack of explicit output format details, but the focus on gas price and units suffices for clarity.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on operational semantics (e.g., gas estimation process and unit conversion) without redundant parameter details, exceeding the baseline of 3 by adding valuable context beyond 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 clearly states the specific action ('Get an estimated gas price and the number of gas units') and resource ('for a Celo transaction'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'eth_estimate_gas' by specifying the Celo blockchain context. It uses precise verbs and identifies the exact scope of the operation.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (estimating gas for Celo transactions) and includes a practical note about converting wei to Gwei for transaction submission. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as 'eth_estimate_gas' for Ethereum transactions.

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