calculate_savings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the calculation is free and depends on a live energy price from 'our price table' plus the chain burn price, which is meaningful behavioral context. It omits permissions, rate limits, and any note on precision or staleness of the price data.

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?

Front-loads the salient fact ('Free.') then states the comparison, and closes with input instructions. Two tight sentences with no filler, though the phrasing of the core purpose is slightly convoluted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should ideally explain what the tool returns (e.g., savings amount, percentage, assumptions). It instead focuses only on inputs and data sources, leaving the return shape unclear for a calculator with no annotation coverage.

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 67%; network and share_to_empty are documented in the schema, while transfers_per_day is undocumented but self-explanatory. The description adds meaning by explaining that share_to_empty refers to transfers going to empty addresses, matching the schema's terse '0..1, default 0'. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial coverage.

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?

States a specific computation: savings from renting energy versus burning TRX for USDT transfers. The roundabout phrasing ('What renting energy saves versus burning TRX') is a bit indirect but still conveys the verb (calculate savings) and resource (energy vs TRX burn cost). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like estimate_contract_call or get_prices.

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?

It gives input guidance ('Give transfers per day and the share that go to empty addresses'), which implies when the tool is appropriate. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no mention of alternatives such as estimate_contract_call or get_prices for related queries.

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