Calculates the transaction fee given an amount.
Calculates the transaction fee given an amount. @param api_key: The api key allocated to your application @param token: The wallet_api_token provided by /access/login @param wallet_fk: The wallet_fk provided by /access/login @param amount: The transaction amount
@return: a json object
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | ||
| amount | Yes | ||
| api_key | Yes | ||
| wallet_fk | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only computation but never confirms that nothing is mutated or persisted, and it says nothing about rate limits, currency assumptions, or whether the fee is indicative vs. binding. Only the auth prerequisites are conveyed, via the param docs.
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 opening sentence is needlessly duplicated word-for-word, which is pure waste at the very front of the definition. The remaining JSDoc-style parameter block is terse and reasonably structured, but the duplication and the boilerplate '@return: a json object' drag it down.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description is the only source for return information, and '@return: a json object' tells the agent nothing about what fields the calculated fee contains. For a 4-required-parameter tool with no annotations, that leaves the agent unable to interpret the result.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it names all four parameters and gives provenance for two of them ('token ... provided by /access/login', 'wallet_fk ... provided by /access/login'). That provenance is genuinely useful. It falls short of 5 because 'api_key' is only loosely described and the units/currency of 'amount' are unstated.
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 verb and resource: 'Calculates the transaction fee given an amount.' That is clear and unambiguous. However, it makes no attempt to distinguish itself from close siblings such as netfluid__fees or netfluid__currency_rates, so an agent has no basis for choosing among them from the text alone.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus the sibling fee/rate tools, and no preconditions beyond the required credentials. The parameter docs imply the agent must already hold a token and wallet_fk, but no workflow or exclusion guidance is given.
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.