getFeeRate

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the rate limit (10 req/s), the return format (decimal strings), and filtering behavior. However, it does not explicitly state idempotency or side effects; the term 'query' implies read-only but could be more explicit.

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 concise, with a main sentence, filtering details, rate limit, and agent hint. It could be slightly shorter without losing clarity, but the structure is logical and front-loaded.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, return format, rate limit, and usage hints. It is complete for a simple query tool. Minor omission: error conditions or empty results not described.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the required category parameter, the filtering logic for symbol (spot/linear/inverse) and baseCoin (options only), and the return format. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 the verb 'query' and the resource 'maker and taker fee rates for the specified product category'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying its scope (fee rates) and filtering options (symbol, baseCoin).

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 explicitly says 'Use this to check fee rates before trading', explains when to use symbol vs baseCoin, and states that category is required. It also includes a rate limit hint, providing comprehensive usage guidance.

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