Get Bopster market fees

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real context: values are read live from the BopsterFactory contract on Base, percentages are relative to the total market pool, and fees are zero on refunds (no positions or no winning side). Missing are latency/RPC-failure behavior and whether values can change over time, but the refund edge case is genuinely useful disclosure.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the return value and its source, then the interpretation of the numbers, then the edge case. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should characterize the return value, and it does by naming the three fee components and their meaning. It stops short of specifying the numeric format (basis points vs. decimal percentages) or the exact response shape, which would be the final gap to close.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter behavior.

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 specific verb and resource ('Return the Bopster market fee split') and enumerates the exact components returned (protocol, creator, resolver), which no sibling tool covers. The on-chain source (BopsterFactory on Base) further pins down scope so an agent can distinguish it from get_market or quote_position.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the way to fetch fee configuration, but the description never says when to call it versus related siblings like get_market (which may also surface fees) or quote_position. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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