liquid_get_fee_rates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of conveying that this is a read-only, safe operation. The verb 'Get' implies a non-destructive fetch, and the additional context about fee stability adds useful behavioral insight. While it doesn't detail return format or error conditions, the simplicity of the tool makes the disclosure adequate.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second adds valuable contextual insight. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential points: what it returns (fee rates in sat/vB) and provides enough context for interpretation. It could specify the exact structure of the return value (e.g., whether it returns a single rate or multiple options), but this is not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 the schema reflects this with an empty properties object. The description adds no parameter details, but the baseline of 4 is appropriate given that no parameters exist to explain.

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 tool's function: 'Get suggested Liquid fee rates in sat/vB.' The verb 'Get' is specific and the resource 'Liquid fee rates' is unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which overlap with fee 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 provides clear context on when this tool is relevant by noting that 'Liquid fees are low and stable' and 'the network minimum is almost always sufficient.' This implies the tool is useful for obtaining precise rates, but the minimum can often be assumed. However, explicit alternatives are not mentioned.

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