get_feeOne fee in full: what it is for, how and when it is charged, its amount and where it applies.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "get_fee"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The fee's id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by naming the record's contents (purpose, charge timing, amount, applicability), effectively sketching the return payload in the absence of an output schema, but it says nothing about behavior on an unknown id.
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?
One tight sentence with zero waste, and the key identifier ("One fee") is front-loaded. The colon-delimited field list is efficient, though "in full" is slightly redundant with the enumeration that follows.
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 simple single-id lookup with annotations covering safety, the description is largely adequate and usefully outlines the returned content since no output schema exists. It still leaves gaps around not-found behavior and the list-vs-single routing, which a complex API surface like this one warrants mentioning.
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% with a single required 'id' parameter already documented as "The fee's id." The description contributes only the implicit notion of fetching one record, adding no format, source, or constraint details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.
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?
"One fee in full" plus an enumeration of the returned aspects makes clear this is a single-record retrieval of a fee, but no explicit verb appears and nothing distinguishes it from the sibling query_fees (list) tool. An agent can infer the intent from the name and title, but the description itself doesn't separate it from its closest sibling.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though query_fees exists in the sibling list as the obvious list-vs-single alternative. The agent must infer that this tool needs a known id and is the wrong choice for browsing fees.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.