Query fee rates for Japanese and Korean stocks Query fee rates for Japanese and Korean stocks. Rate limit: 5 qps.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "cex_stock_query_stock_fee_rate"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's one added behavioral fact is the 5 qps rate limit, which is useful but thin context; nothing is said about response shape, caching, or whether the result is a full rate table.
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 same sentence ('Query fee rates for Japanese and Korean stocks') is emitted twice verbatim before the rate limit, which is pure duplication rather than front-loading. The content is short but the redundancy wastes the most prominent line of the definition.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool the bar is low, and the description tells the agent the domain (JP/KR stocks) and a rate limit. However, with no output schema it gives no hint about what the returned fee structure looks like or whether it covers all symbols, leaving an agent guessing about the response.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline is 4. There is no filtering syntax or market argument to explain.
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?
Clear verb (Query) plus resource (fee rates) plus scope (Japanese and Korean stocks), so an agent can distinguish it from the many other stock tools. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like cex_stock_query_stock_symbols or cex_stock_query_stock_exchanges beyond the resource word 'fee rates'.
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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the ~90 sibling tools. The only usage constraint given is a technical rate limit, which is operational rather than selection guidance.
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.