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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful scope detail (currencies, 12 networks) but does not disclose refresh cadence, whether fees are live or cached, or the response shape.

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-loads the resource and cost dimensions, then closes with a practical query example. Dense but every clause carries meaning; the network enumeration is somewhat redundant with the enum but aids scannability.

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-required-param, read-only query tool with no output schema, the description conveys scope (currencies, operations, network list) well enough to call correctly. It could note the default behavior when 'network' is omitted, which is the one meaningful gap.

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 the single optional 'network' param is a well-documented enum. The description lists the same 12 networks the enum contains, so it adds no semantics beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

States a specific resource (USD/BRL network fees) and enumerates exactly what cost dimensions it covers – native send, USDT/USDC to holder/new address, and swap – across 12 named networks. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_gas_price (EVM gas only) and get_exchange_withdrawal_fees (CEX fees).

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?

Provides a concrete example use case ('what is the cheapest network to send USDT') that anchors when to use it. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_gas_price or get_bitcoin_fees, leaving the agent to infer boundaries from the network enumeration.

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