get_coin_withdrawal_fees

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It offers no information about side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or response characteristics beyond the bare minimum.

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 a single, concise sentence without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could be slightly expanded with usage context without harming conciseness.

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 tool is simple (no parameters) and has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, given the many sibling tools (e.g., get_coin_withdrawal, get_fiat_withdrawal), the description lacks context on when to use this specific tool, making it less complete for an agent.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% vacuously. With no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. A score of 4 is appropriate as it adds no confusion.

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 withdrawal fees for all supported cryptocurrencies,' specifying the verb 'get' and the resource 'withdrawal fees' with a defined scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_coin_withdrawal (specific withdrawal) and get_coin_withdrawals (list of withdrawals).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the large number of sibling tools (e.g., get_coin_withdrawal, get_coin_deposits), the description should provide context on appropriate usage scenarios or exclusions.

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