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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the tool performs estimations (read-only) and lists actions, but does not explicitly state that no transaction is signed or submitted. It does add useful context about credits and response headers, which is a behavioral trait. Still, the lack of an explicit read-only/safety disclosure keeps it from a higher score.

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 a clear purpose, but the credits section is excessively long and repetitive, listing the same credit values for multiple actions. This violates the principle that every sentence should earn its place. The core action list is useful, but the redundancy makes the description bloated and less scannable.

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?

The tool has 11 parameters and 5 distinct actions, but the description does not guide the agent on which action to choose for a given scenario. The schema hints at required parameters per action, and the action names are self-explanatory, but without an output schema or action-selection guidance, the description is only minimally complete.

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 description coverage is 100% and each parameter already includes detailed descriptions, including action-specific requirements. The tool description's action list duplicates some of this information (e.g., which action requires 'data') without adding new meaning beyond the schema. Therefore, it meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Get fee recommendations and estimate gas costs for EVM blockchains.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings (UTXO, XRP) by explicitly scoping to EVM. The subsequent action list enumerates concrete operations, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use this before preparing or signing a transaction to determine appropriate gas parameters.' This gives a concrete context. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, though the sibling tool names (UTXO/XRP) implicitly differentiate by chain type.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden, and it does well: it explains the compute-unit cost model, per-action credit costs, and explicitly notes credits are indicative and actual spend appears in response headers. It omits whether the calls mutate anything (they appear read-only) and any auth or rate-limit context.

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-loaded one-line statement of purpose followed by scannable action and credit bullets; nothing is redundant. The credit table is somewhat heavy for a description body, though it is structured and actionable information.

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?

For an 11-parameter, 4-action tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all actions, their purposes, and cost metadata, which is enough for correct invocation. It stops short of describing response shape or per-action parameter requirements, though the schema covers the latter at full 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 description coverage is 100% and every parameter (amount, sender, recipient, tokenStandard, programId, accounts, instructionData, etc.) is documented in the schema, including which action requires it. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific resource ('fee recommendations and compute-unit estimation') and enumerates the four concrete actions with one-line purposes each. It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from EVM-based siblings by noting Solana uses compute units rather than gas, and the name makes its chain scope unambiguous against Tezos/UTXO/XRP siblings.

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?

Each action line implies when it applies (native SOL transfer vs SPL token transfer vs arbitrary program invocation vs fee lookup), giving an agent clear routing within the tool. It does not, however, state when a caller should NOT use an action (e.g., preconditions for program-invocation estimation) or compare against non-EVM siblings beyond the gas/compute-unit remark.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose real cost context: per-action credit costs plus the caveat that they are indicative and that actual credits appear in response headers. That is genuinely useful and non-obvious. It stops short of describing side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior, which for a 4-action estimator leaves a meaningful gap.

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 definition is front-loaded with the purpose, then a clean action list, then the credit block. It is appropriately sized, though the credit section repeats the identical value '52' four times and could be collapsed to a single line, which is minor redundancy rather than bloat.

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?

For a 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers action selection well but says nothing about the shape of the returned fee estimate, the network requirement (mainnet vs shadownet), or failure modes. It is adequate for invocation but not fully complete given the absence of a structured output contract.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains every parameter, including conditional requirements and the tokenId string-format trap. The description contributes no additional parameter semantics beyond mapping actions to purposes, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a concrete resource (Tezos fees) and enumerates four specific actions covering XTZ, FA1.2 and FA2 transfers, so the agent knows exactly what operations are available. The chain-specific scope is unmistakable and cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like blockchain_fees_evm and blockchain_fees_solana.

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?

Each action is paired with a plain-language purpose (e.g. 'get-fee-recommendations: get current minimal fee/cost rates from the mempool'), which effectively routes the agent to the right action for the transfer type at hand. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no cross-reference to the sibling chain tools, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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

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 the two actions, includes credit costs per action/blockchain, and notes that credits are indicative and actual costs are returned in response headers. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior or side effects.

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 main purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance and a structured action list. The credits section is somewhat verbose but serves a purpose (cost transparency). Overall, it's well-organized and each section earns its place, though it could be slightly more compact.

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?

The description covers the tool's scope, use cases, available actions, and cost information, which is solid for a fee-recommendation tool. It lacks an output schema but the actions imply the return type. The description is sufficiently complete given the tool's complexity, though it could clarify the meaning of fee tiers or the return structure.

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 100% and each parameter has a description. The tool description adds action-to-parameter mapping (e.g., feeRatePriority and confirmationTarget are 'estimate-transaction-smart-fee only') but this is also present in the schema. The description doesn't significantly augment the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Get fee recommendations for UTXO blockchains' and lists the specific blockchains (bitcoin, bitcoin-cash, litecoin, dogecoin, dash, zcash). It also differentiates from sibling tools by naming the UTXO scope, which contrasts with the EVM and XRP siblings.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this before preparing or signing a transaction to determine the appropriate fee rate.' It also breaks down the two actions and their specific use cases. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or name alternative tools, so it falls 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.

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses credit costs and that actual credits are in response headers, which is useful. However, it does not describe the return format or any side effects, though as a read-only fee tool this is less critical.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes credit info as a separate block, which is relevant but could be considered extraneous. Overall, it is efficient with no fluff.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter and no output schema. The description gives network options and credit costs, but does not explain what 'fee recommendations' includes or the structure of the response. For a minimal fee tool, this is adequate but has gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%: both 'network' (with enum) and 'context' are fully described in the schema. The description only repeats the network names, adding no new parameter semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'get fee recommendations' for XRP, with specific network options. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like blockchain_fees_utxo and blockchain_fees_evm by explicitly naming the chain (XRP) and supported networks.

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: when you need fee recommendations for XRP on mainnet or testnet. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling fee tools or system_info, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and explicitly notes 'no API call, no credits consumed,' which is key behavioral information. It also discloses detailed content such as retry strategy, HMAC security, and rate-limit penalty multipliers, going well beyond a generic 'returns info' statement.

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 critical 'no API call, no credits consumed' caveat and uses a compact bullet list. Each bullet covers a distinct action without wasted prose, making it highly scannable 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?

For a reference-documentation tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is complete enough: it defines all five actions and gives sufficient detail about their content. It also clarifies side effects (none) and cost implications (none), covering the main contextual risks.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning by explaining each allowed action enum value in detail (e.g., callbacks covers URL requirements, 5 retries, HMAC). This transforms enum names into actionable context and compensates fully beyond the schema's short parameter descriptions.

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 this is CryptoAPIs reference documentation with no API call or credits consumed, and enumerates five specific topics (blockchains, errors, credits, callbacks, limits). This clearly identifies it as an informational tool distinct from domain siblings like aml.

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 bulleted actions give clear contexts for when to use the tool, such as looking up error codes, credit structures, callback mechanics, or rate limits. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a full when/when-not specification.

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