hl_user_fees

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or any potential side effects. It does not contradict annotations, but it provides minimal behavioral context.

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 extremely concise at 12 words, with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the key terms 'fee tier' and 'daily volume stats' and is appropriately sized for a simple query 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?

While an output schema exists (which may explain return values), the description is incomplete as a standalone explanation. It does not provide context on when to use the tool, what user identifier to supply, or how it fits among the many sibling user-related tools. The description is a fragment that leaves the agent to infer too much.

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 schema has one required parameter 'user' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention this parameter or clarify what format the user identifier should take (e.g., address, username). The parameter name 'user' gives only a basic hint, and the description fails to add any additional meaning.

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 identifies the resource: user fee tier and daily volume stats. It is a specific noun phrase that distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which explicitly mention user fees. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists', which would make the action unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool or how it relates to alternatives such as hl_user_fills or hl_user_funding_history. The description only states what information is provided, not when to call it.

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