purchase_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states it makes one logical GET request, does not auto-fetch continuation pages, limits array responses to 100 rows and 256 KiB with truncation reporting, and refuses oversized records without partial fields. It also clarifies that declared filters are forwarded as supplied without implying effectiveness. These are specific behavioral traits that an agent needs to know.

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 moderately long but every sentence adds value. It front-loads the core purpose, then details safety, request behavior, and response limits. It is structured logically and avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more concise by merging some clauses. Overall, it is well-organized and 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers what the tool does, its side-effect-free nature, request behavior, pagination, response limits, truncation handling, and refusal of oversized records. There is nothing an agent needs to know to call it correctly that is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The description adds a note about 'Other declared filters are forwarded as supplied' which is behavioral context rather than parameter semantics. Since there are no parameters to describe, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any gaps.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Read public purchase price and fee settings.' It immediately distinguishes itself from purchase-execution tools by stating 'This makes no purchase and changes no setting,' which differentiates it from siblings like purchase_stats or purchase_uniswap_reward. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 implies usage for reading settings without side effects, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It says 'This makes no purchase and changes no setting,' which hints at read-only usage, but there is no mention of alternative tools or conditions for selection. This is adequate but not explicit.

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