estimate_contract_call

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that nothing is signed, no key is needed, execution happens on a public node, and what the simulation returns. It omits failure/error behavior and rate-limit or network-default caveats, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences: the safety/cost profile leads, the mechanism and return values follow, and the invocation hint closes. No filler, and the most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded.

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, yet the description names the returned quantities (energy and TRX burn), which is the key thing an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around error semantics and network defaults, but it is complete for correct invocation.

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 80% (baseline 3), and the description adds genuine value for the one weak spot: it explains the function-selector format with the example "transfer(address,uint256)" and clarifies the parameter is ABI-encoded hex. owner_address/contract_address/network are left to 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?

States a specific verb+resource (simulate a smart contract call) and names the exact underlying RPC (triggerconstantcontract) plus the concrete outputs (energy used, TRX burned without energy). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_energy_fee_history or get_chain_parameters.

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?

Gives real selecting context — read-only, free, no API key, nothing signed — which tells the agent this is the safe pre-flight check. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when-not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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