klaytn_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. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a fee estimation tool (not a transaction execution), specifies the data source (bitquery.io), notes the cost (2 credits per API call), and warns about unit conversion (peb to Gpeb). This adds valuable context beyond basic functionality.

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 important details (cost, source, conversion note). It uses three sentences efficiently, with each adding value (estimation details, credit cost, conversion warning). Minor room for improvement in flow, but overall well-structured and concise.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description provides good completeness: it explains what the tool does, its cost, data source, and critical conversion requirement. It could slightly enhance by mentioning output format or error cases, but covers essential context for a fee estimation tool.

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 does not discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and behavior. A baseline of 4 is applied as it compensates well for the lack of parameters by explaining other aspects.

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') for a specific resource ('Klaytn transaction'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'eth_estimate_gas' or 'bsc_estimate_gas' by specifying the blockchain. It goes beyond just restating the name by detailing what the estimation includes.

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 context for Klaytn transactions and mentions a conversion requirement for submitting transactions, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other blockchain-specific gas estimators in the sibling list). It provides some guidance but lacks explicit comparison or exclusion criteria.

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