steward_route_fees

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: it discloses the operation is free, read-only, advisory, holds no wallet/custody and 'moves nothing,' and that the ranking is neutral. It also flags that fee_source is 'live or typical' verbatim from the API. It stops short of covering error behavior, rate limits, or result freshness beyond the live/typical distinction.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the disambiguation and safety notes. Every clause earns its place — route list, output fields, sibling routing, and advisory posture all carry information.

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?

With no output schema present, the description usefully names the return fields (fee_usd, total_usd, fee_source) and their provenance. Combined with explicit sibling routing and safety posture, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (token, amount_usd) are already fully documented with ranges and formats in the schema. The description adds only the framing 'for a USD amount' and implies the token restriction, which does not meaningfully extend the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Full ranked fee table for all 6 crypto transfer routes') and enumerates the exact routes and tokens covered. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling steward_cheapest_route, so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use: 'Use this for the complete comparison; use steward_cheapest_route when you only need the winner.' The alternative is named and the selecting condition is stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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