ashar_get_partner_feeRetrieve a specific partner fee schedule by ID to view sanitized fee details for accurate exchange cost calculations.
Get a single partner fee schedule by id.
Args:
fee_id (string): the partner fee id
Returns the sanitized fee schedule.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fee_id | Yes | Partner fee id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that it returns a 'sanitized' schedule, which hints at redaction but never explains what sanitization removes, so added value is modest.
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?
Very short and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence and arguments delegated to a compact list. The 'Returns the sanitized fee schedule' line is slightly redundant with the opening but still useful context.
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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage this is nearly sufficient, but 'sanitized' is unexplained and there is no output schema to clarify what the returned schedule contains. An agent knows how to call it but not exactly what it gets back.
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 100% and the single fee_id parameter is documented in both schema and the Args section. The description merely restates 'the partner fee id' with no format, source, or validation detail beyond the schema, so a 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 verb and resource ('Get a single partner fee schedule by id'), which distinguishes it from sibling ashar_list_partner_fees and the create/delete variants. It doesn't explicitly name the alternatives, but the singular-by-id framing makes the distinction inferable.
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 versus ashar_list_partner_fees (to discover ids) or when a fee schedule might be absent. The 'by id' phrasing implies a retrieval use case but offers no explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.