xRocket trade fees

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds only the nuance that symbols are optional/repeated; it does not explain what happens when symbols are omitted or whether results are current.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get exchange trade-fee data') and only then mentions the optional scope.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with annotations and an output schema, this definition is mostly sufficient. The main gap is that omitting symbols and the resulting default behavior are not explicitly described.

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's item-level description provides the exact symbol format and example, while the tool description only adds 'optionally for repeated symbols.' It partially compensates for the low top-level schema coverage but does not clarify the default behavior when no symbols are provided.

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 and resource ('Get exchange trade-fee data') and clearly scopes the operation to trade fees, which separates it from siblings like xrocket_market_trades and xrocket_market_tickers. The optional symbols mention adds further precision.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus sibling alternatives. The phrase 'optionally for repeated symbols' is a parameter detail rather than a when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement, so an agent must infer context from the name alone.

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