Approve builder fee — guide (read-only)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds critical context: it never signs and never sees the user's main key, and it clarifies what the tool generates (payload and instructions). This adds value beyond the annotations.

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 four sentences, each adding value. It front-loads 'Read-only' and succinctly conveys purpose, safety, and a disclaimer. No fluff or redundancy.

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 zero parameters, annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and its safety profile. However, it does not explicitly state the context in which this guide should be used (e.g., before paying a fee), which might leave some ambiguity for new users.

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?

With no parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description provides essential meaning by explaining that the tool generates a payload and instructions, thus clarifying the tool's output and purpose beyond the empty schema.

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 it generates an approveBuilderFee action payload and step-by-step instructions, specifying the target authorization (HyperSignal builder code with MAIN wallet). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., order placement, market queries) by being a read-only guide.

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 implies this is used as a preparatory step for authorizing the builder fee, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The sibling tools are unrelated, so no direct comparison is needed.

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