eth_fee_history

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, side effects, rate limits). The pricing mention is not a behavioral trait. The tool's behavior beyond returning fee history is opaque.

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 concise but mixes functional purpose with pricing and API URL, which are extraneous for tool invocation. It is not optimally structured for an agent.

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?

With no output schema, the description fails to explain return values or format. Given a single parameter, the tool is simple, but the absence of response documentation makes it incomplete for agent usage.

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 100% coverage with description '天数' for the 'days' parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 states '以太坊手续费历史' which clearly indicates Ethereum fee history, effectively specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like eth_gas_now or gas_forecast, so it loses a point for differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as eth_gas_now or gas_forecast. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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