Fetches the baseline trading fee rate in basis points for a given token's market, enabling accurate cost estimation for trades.
Retrieve the baseline trading fee rate (measured in basis points) applicable to a specific token's market.
Args: token_id (str): The fundamental token identifier indicating the outcome side.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says the rate is 'baseline' and 'applicable to a specific token's market', which hints at scoping, but it does not disclose whether the value is static, cached, rate-limited, or how it varies over time. No output schema is referenced in the text, though one exists.
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 front-loaded and concise, with the core purpose in the first sentence and a brief parameter note. The 'Args:' block is slightly redundant given the single parameter but not wasteful.
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?
With no annotations, low parameter coverage, and no reference to the existing output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool that returns a numeric rate. It omits units context beyond 'basis points', default behavior, and edge cases, leaving the agent under-informed.
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% and there is one required parameter. The description adds only 'The fundamental token identifier indicating the outcome side', which is somewhat vague and does not explain format, source, or relationship to other tools. It adds marginal meaning but does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
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 verb and resource ('Retrieve the baseline trading fee rate... for a specific token's market') and clarifies the unit (basis points). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_tick_size or get_neg_risk, but the resource is distinct enough to be identifiable.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.