getFeeGroupInfo

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: no authentication is required, productType=contract is the only supported value, and it applies only to Pro/Market Maker clients. It also discloses the high-level return shape, which is useful since no output schema is present.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence summary and uses structured bullets for use cases and notes. It is slightly repetitive because the 'Agent hint' paragraph restates the productType constraint and the Pro/Market Maker scope, but it remains skimmable and well organized.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with enums covering valid values, the description covers selection context, parameter behavior, authentication scope, client eligibility, and return structure. The 'Returns a list of fee groups, each with their symbol list and fee rate table' statement is a sufficient substitute for a missing output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well: it states that productType is required and only accepts 'contract', and that groupId is optional with values 1–8. It also gives semantic meaning to groupId by connecting it to fee group membership, such as 'G1 for major coins'.

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 first sentence names a precise verb ('Query'), a specific resource ('tiered fee structure for Pro-level and Market Maker clients organized by symbol groups'), and the key data included ('taker/maker fee rates and maker rebates per client tier'). It also explicitly points standard accounts to the getFeeRate sibling, so the tool is clearly differentiated.

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 explicit 'Use this endpoint when you need to' bullets covering group IDs, symbol-group membership, and tier comparisons. It also gives a direct exclusion: 'For standard account fee rates, use the Account getFeeRate endpoint instead.'

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