Trading fee schedules per venue, base tier maker and taker

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's job is to add context, and it does: data is read daily from each venue's own fee endpoint, and per-pair priced venues are reduced to a median across pairs. It does not disclose coverage gaps or venues lacking a fee endpoint, which is the main remaining behavioral unknown.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the invocation triggers, with no filler. The second sentence is long and packs in return shape, aggregation rule, and provenance, which is dense but still readable; a slight split would improve scannability.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description states what comes back (maker/taker base tier per venue and market type, plus fee change log) and where it comes from. It stops short of specifying units (percent vs bps), timestamp granularity, or how venues without per-pair pricing are handled.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly frames the output as venue-wide rather than accepting a notional argument, implicitly telling the agent that round-trip math must be done client-side.

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 names a specific resource (trading fee schedules) and a precise scope (base tier maker/taker per venue and market type, plus a fee change log). It clearly separates itself from siblings like get_leverage_tiers, get_venue_profile, or get_venue_markets by talking only about maker/taker pricing.

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?

Four concrete triggers are given: asking what an exchange charges, comparing maker/taker across venues, checking whether fees changed, and computing round-trip cost on a notional. What is missing is an explicit exclusion or named alternative (e.g. 'for VIP/volume tiers use X'), so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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