bags_get_claimable_fees

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only, side-effect-free operation, but it omits potential details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. Minimal but not misleading.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with no filler. The core operation and the key 'free read-only' constraint are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup tool with no output schema, this description is nearly complete. It states the purpose, the scope, the wallet parameter, and the cost/side-effect tier. It could mention return shape or authentication posture, but the simple nature of the tool makes those gaps minor.

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 100% and the single optional parameter is already well documented with its default behavior. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Query') and a clear resource ('all claimable creator/LP fees for a wallet'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bags_claim_fees, which perform the actual claiming action.

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 phrase 'read-only tier' gives useful context and implies this is the non-mutating counterpart to bags_claim_fees, but it never explicitly names alternatives or states when to choose this tool over another. Usage guidance is implied rather than directly explained.

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