get_basket_fee

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool gets a fee, implying a read operation, but does not disclose whether the fee is constant or dynamic, if authentication is required, or if any side effects exist. The behavioral profile is insufficient.

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 a single concise sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded and efficient, fitting the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the basic action. However, it does not mention what the output represents (e.g., numeric value, coin) or any constraints, leaving the agent without full context. It is adequate but could be more informative.

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 schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter details but is not required to. The absence of parameters is clear from the schema, so the description does not need to compensate. A higher score would require additional context about the fee's variability.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'basket creation fee', indicating the tool retrieves a fee. However, it does not explain what the fee is for or how it is determined, which could be ambiguous. It vaguely distinguishes from siblings like get_basket (which gets basket details) but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_basket or list_baskets. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or limitations, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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