mb_get_asset_fees

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly signals a read-only 'Get' operation and adds context that results include minimum amounts and confirmation requirements per network. It does not cover error cases or output format, but for a simple query this is acceptable.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The primary action is front-loaded, and every word contributes value.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the tool's purpose and includes key details about minimum amounts and confirmations without over-explaining.

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% for both asset and network. The description adds only 'per network' context which aligns with the network parameter, but does not add substantial semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description states 'Get deposit and withdrawal fees for a specific asset' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like mb_get_trading_fees and mb_get_asset_networks by focusing on deposit/withdrawal fees.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, nor is there any mention of alternative sibling tools. Usage is implied by the description but not clearly differentiated from tools like mb_get_trading_fees.

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