Get Fee Schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: fees and escrow limits may change, the tool is the single source of truth, and it returns structured categories needed before paid calls. It does not go as far as disclosing rate limits or failure modes, but those are less critical for a zero-parameter read-only endpoint.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence summary, a clear usage warning, and a bulleted breakdown of return categories. Every line adds decision-relevant information, and the most important guidance—call before paid endpoints and do not hard-code values—is 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?

For a read-only, zero-parameter tool with a strong output schema and descriptive annotations, the description is fully complete. It covers when to call, why it is authoritative, and what each returned section means, leaving no gap an agent would need to resolve before invoking the tool.

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, and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate because the description instead clarifies the meaning of the returned fields, which is the only semantic ambiguity that matters here.

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 and resource: 'Return the current fee schedule, accepted payment assets, free-tier rules, and escrow limits.' It clearly enumerates the tool's full scope and distinguishes it from fee-related siblings like get_xrp_price by covering the broader fee/escrow/payment policy rather than just a price tick.

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 gives an explicit usage directive: 'Call this before calling any paid endpoint.' It also establishes this tool as the authoritative source and warns against hard-coding fee amounts or escrow caps, which tells an agent when it must consult this tool and how to treat its results.

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