get_account_fee_tier

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: credentials used per request, never cached, never logged, audit logs redact them; a read-only key is mandated (no trading/withdrawal); Hyperliquid's wallet-address-as-apiKey mode is called out; and country compliance gates are enforced before any authenticated call. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a credential-bearing read tool.

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?

Front-loads the when-to-use trigger, then the mechanics, then the supported/unsupported exchange inventory. The exchange list is long but functional rather than filler; some phrasing (repeating the read-only key requirement) could be trimmed.

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 an 8-parameter, credential-based tool with no output schema, the description covers intent, credential formats, exchange support boundaries, and compliance gating. The one thing it could add is return-value shape, but it does describe the meaningful output (the bps gap), leaving no material gap for correct invocation.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the prose adds real meaning: Hyperliquid needs only the public 0x wallet address as apiKey, OKX/KuCoin-Futures need passphrase as password, and monthlyVolumeUsd is only used to pick the comparison tier from the bundled table. Those cross-parameter interactions are not obvious from the individual property descriptions alone.

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?

States a precise verb+resource: fetch the account's ACTUAL maker/taker fee for spot or futures, compare it against the bundled public VIP schedule at a given volume, and show the gap in bps. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like compare_exchange_fees or get_execution_cost, which do not reconcile a personal account rate against a schedule.

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?

Opens with an explicit user-intent trigger in Chinese ("why is my real fee different from the public table"), which is genuinely strong when-to-use guidance. It also documents which exchanges are supported and which are not, but never names a sibling tool as the alternative for the cases it doesn't cover.

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