Tatum MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get an estimated'), mentions a cost ('2 credits per API call'), specifies the data source, and provides critical behavioral notes about unit conversion (wei to Gwei) for transaction submission. This adds substantial 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and cost, followed by essential behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the tool, the second specifies the data source, and the third provides critical usage guidance. There is no wasted text, making it highly 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 the tool's complexity (fee estimation with unit conversion), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, cost, data source, and key behavioral notes. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or example outputs, which could enhance completeness for an AI agent.

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 compensates by explaining the output semantics: it returns estimated gas price (in wei) and gas units, and includes a crucial note about converting to Gwei for transactions. This adds meaningful value beyond the empty 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get an estimated gas price and the number of gas units') and resources ('for a BNB Smart Chain transaction'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'eth_estimate_gas' or 'celo_estimate_gas' by specifying the BNB Smart Chain context. It explicitly mentions the source of gas price data (explorer.bitquery.io/bsc/gas), further differentiating its functionality.

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: for estimating gas on BNB Smart Chain transactions, with an implicit alternative being other blockchain-specific tools (e.g., 'eth_estimate_gas' for Ethereum). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it directly to all sibling tools, such as 'estimate_fee_blockchain' or 'get_blockchain_fee', which might offer broader fee estimation.

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