purchase_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully covers read-only safety, a single GET request, no auto-fetching of continuation pages, response truncation limits, and refusal of oversized records. The generic filter/input boilerplate is slightly inaccurate for an empty schema, which prevents a 5.

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 first sentence is clear and front-loaded. But the later sentences contain boilerplate about inputs and filters that do not apply to this zero-parameter tool, making the description longer and more confusing than necessary.

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?

The description covers call behavior, safety, pagination, and response-size limits, which is helpful. However, with no output schema, it does not describe what the returned purchase price and fee settings actually look like. The unrelated input/filter boilerplate also undermines completeness for this specific endpoint.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema fully documents that with an empty properties object and additionalProperties false. However, the description's statements about 'required inputs' and 'declared filters' misleadingly imply parameters exist, adding confusion instead of meaningful semantic guidance. A simple 'takes no parameters' statement would have been better.

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 begins with a clear verb+resource: 'Read public purchase price and fee settings.' This conveys the tool's purpose effectively. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like purchase_stats or purchase_uniswap_reward, so it is not a 5.

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 provides safety/behavior context but does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it give exclusions or selection criteria. Statements like 'makes no purchase' describe what happens, not when to choose this endpoint.

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