get_fee_tierThis account's current trading fee tier and conditions: maker/taker fee (% of notional; a negative maker fee is a rebate), the 30-day maker/taker volume it is judged on, any staking discount, the next tier and how much more 30d volume it takes, plus the full fee-tier table. Referred users start at the program's minimum fee tier (see get_referral_program).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this tool is safe and non-mutating, and the description reinforces that with a present-state framing ('current trading fee tier'). The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotation—clarifying that negative maker fee is a rebate, what the 30-day volume is 'judged on,' and that the full tier table is included. It does not address data freshness or account permission requirements, but for a read-only no-parameter look-up these are minor.
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 description is dense but well-structured: it leads with the resource and then lists all the informational components in one continuing sentence. The referral sentence is a useful, compact caveat. It is slightly long and packed with details, but every clause earns its place and an agent does not have to parse a wall of text.
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, read-only tool, the description is complete enough to let an agent understand what will be returned and how to interpret it (e.g., negative maker fee, volume target for next tier). There is no output schema, so the description's enumeration of the result contents fills that gap well. The only missing piece is any explicit statement about being purely informational, but the readOnly annotation and 'current' wording cover that implicitly.
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 the schema already fully describes the invocation surface. The description compensates with context about the account-derived inputs (30-day, maker/taker volume, staking discount) that the agent should expect to be reflected in the output, which is helpful even though no user input is needed. With no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'This account's current trading fee tier and conditions.' It goes beyond the title by enumerating exactly what is included (maker/taker fee, volume thresholds, staking discount, next tier, full table), and it clearly distinguishes itself from other account/read tools by focusing on fee tier. The tie to get_referral_program for referred users separates it from that 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?
The description clearly establishes the tool is for retrieving the current account's fee-tier details, so an agent can determine when it is appropriate. It also gives an explicit cross-reference for referred users to get_referral_program instead. It does not spell out 'use when you need fee tier' vs. other account metrics, but the scope is self-evident and the referral exception provides a useful conditional.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinct, but there is overlap among the read-heavy account tools: get_balance/get_funding_status/fund virtually duplicate each other, and get_equity/get_portfolio/get_position_risk/get_open_orders/get_positions all converge on equity and open-position data. The detailed descriptions help an agent choose, but several tools have fuzzy boundaries.
The overwhelming majority follow the expected verb_noun convention: get_*, place_*, cancel_*, close_*. Minor deviations such as batch_cancel, get_candles_multi, top_up_gas, and whoami make the pattern not perfectly uniform, but the inconsistency is small.
At 33 tools, the surface is beyond what most agents need and includes several redundant query helpers rather than genuinely distinct operations. A broad exchange can justify a large surface, but get_balance/get_funding_status, get_equity/get_portfolio/get_position_risk, and get_candles/get_candles_multi make the set feel top-heavy.
The core lifecycle is well covered: market discovery, market data, order placement/cancellation, position management, risk, funding transfers, PnL, and account status. Obvious gaps are limited to historical order lookup by order ID, a way to cancel across all markets in one call, and a few optional account-history conveniences.