fee_schedule_register

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states only that provenance is required — and that is already encoded in the schema's required list — while leaving out what happens on duplicate versions, whether writes overwrite or reject, permission needs, or side effects. The parenthetical citation '(5.3)' and 'T1 (core-local)' are opaque references with no explanation.

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 text is short and front-loads the action, which is good, but internal codes like 'T1 (core-local)' and '(5.3)' consume space without conveying meaning to an agent. The emphatic 'a schedule without it is not a schedule' is rhetorical rather than informative.

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 write tool with no annotations, no output schema, a nested object parameter, and zero schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. An agent would not know the semantics of half the parameters or the failure/re-registration behavior before calling it.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must explain them and it does not. It mentions only source and fetched_at, which merely restates the required array, and says nothing about venue, version, taker/maker_fee_bps units (and why bps values are typed as strings), freshness_hours, or the nested settlement_fee_model object.

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 gives a specific verb + resource pair ('Register a versioned fee schedule'), which is immediately understandable. It never acknowledges the sibling fee_schedule_get, so the read/write split between the two tools has to be inferred from the names 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 guidance on when to use this rather than fee_schedule_get, or on prerequisites such as prior venue/instrument setup. It also says nothing about what to do when re-registering an existing venue+version, which is the main ambiguity for a versioned write tool.

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