mb_get_trading_fees

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the read operation ('Get') and the returned data, but does not disclose potential dependencies such as fee rates varying by account tier or error handling. The description is minimally adequate for a simple fetch.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simple read tool with no output schema, the description states the return value (maker/taker rates) and provides a relevant use case. It lacks explicit distinction from mb_get_asset_fees and does not describe the output format, but it covers the essential information.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it aligns 'symbol' with 'specific market' but does not explain the role of 'accountId' in determining fee rates.

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 clearly states 'Get maker and taker fee rates for a specific market', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It is distinct from sibling tools like mb_get_asset_fees by focusing on trading fees for a market rather than asset-level 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?

The description gives a clear usage context: 'Useful before placing orders to estimate costs.' This indicates when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools like mb_get_asset_fees.

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