Begin with the problem you are solving, not a feature list. Who will use the system, how often, and what happens today? An estimator who grasps the purpose often proposes a cheaper route to it; someone handed only the requirements as given will price exactly what you asked for.
Describe the scope as concrete flows: a walk through each important path. Every bit as useful, list what you are not building. A written out-of-scope list saves more friction at delivery time than almost anything else in the document. Mark too which parts are firm and which may still change — honest teams price those differently, and concealing the open questions helps no one.
List the constraints. The list covers the platforms and angular development services involved, the data you already hold and its condition, compliance requirements, expected load, which devices matter and fintech software development company infrastructure that is already decided. Where a date is genuinely fixed, say why: a team will often resequence the work to meet it, but not if the date is a secret.
Write down what done means feature by feature. Acceptance criteria do not require special syntax: a plain-language note stating what a user should be able to do is enough. That one addition compresses acceptance testing dramatically and eliminates the usual argument at handover.
To close, ask for a specific format. Ask for a task-level breakdown, the assumptions behind each number, the main risks and a low number and a high number. Treat a wide range as useful information rather than evasion: it usually points to where your description is thin. Then clarify that area and hire edtech developers ask for a new estimate — the next version tends to be far closer to reality.