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 mark the tool readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns base tier fees, uses a median across pairs where venues price per pair, includes a fee change log, and is read daily from venue fee endpoints. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 trigger conditions, followed by a compact data-source and output description. Every phrase adds value—there is no filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: when to invoke it, what it returns, how data is aggregated, and how fresh the data is. Nothing critical is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema carries no burden and the description cannot add parameter-level detail. The description instead clarifies what the unfiltered response covers (all venues and market types), which is the appropriate compensation for a parameterless tool.

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 states a specific verb ('get'), the resource (trading fee schedules per venue), and the exact data returned: base tier maker and taker per venue and market type. It also lists concrete user intents, making it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_venue_markets or get_venue_profile.

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 'Call this when...' and enumerates four specific query types: exchange fees, maker/taker comparisons, fee changes, and round-trip costs. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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