getFixedTermProduct

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral disclosures: no authentication is required and the rate limit is 50 req/s per IP. These go beyond the annotations, but the description does not clarify behavior like whether omitting the optional coin parameter returns all products or how responses are structured.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the two most operationally relevant facts: authentication and rate limit. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth, and rate limit, and even previews return fields. However, the missing coin parameter semantics and lack of alternative-tool guidance leave meaningful gaps, resulting in a merely adequate definition.

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% and the description never explains the 'coin' parameter. An agent is left to guess whether coin is a filter, required in practice, or what values are valid. This is a significant gap for a tool with only one parameter.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Query fixed term product information' and names concrete fields (tiered APY, min/max stake amount, product status). It distinguishes itself from order/position siblings like getFixedTermOrder and getFixedTermPosition, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other product-query siblings such as getEarnProduct or getTokenProduct.

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 operational context (no authentication required, rate limit) but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. With many product-related siblings, an agent gets no explicit direction about when getFixedTermProduct is the appropriate call.

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