get_fee

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It accurately conveys a pure fee-calculation operation, but it does not describe the return value, whether the fee is returned in the provided currency, or whether the calculation follows Discogs's current fee schedule. This is acceptable for a simple calculator but not fully transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, and it is appropriately sized for a two-parameter calculation tool.

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?

The tool is simple, but there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should at least hint at the result shape and currency assumptions. It does not explicitly state the return value or the currency handling beyond naming 'currency'. The core purpose is clear enough for basic invocation, but some context is missing.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning to the parameters. It does tie 'price' and 'currency' to the fee calculation, clarifying their roles. However, it does not explain that currency should be a 3-letter ISO code beyond the schema's length constraints, nor does it specify whether price represents the pre-fee item price. It provides minimal added value.

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 ('Calculate') and names a specific resource ('Discogs marketplace fee') along with its inputs. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as get_price_suggestions, get_marketplace_stats, and get_currency_exchange_rates.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_price_suggestions or get_marketplace_stats. It implies a fee-calculation use case but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or when a sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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