get_account_fees

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains the negative maker rate rebate semantics, the meaning of `volume_30d_estimated: true`, the forward-looking vs realized distinction, and the credential requirement. This is notable behavioral detail beyond the bare function name.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every clause adds distinct value: content, rebate explanation, scope caveat, estimation caveat, and credential requirement. No wasted words.

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, no-output-schema, no-annotation read tool, the description fully covers what the tool returns, important interpretation caveats, and prerequisites. It gives the agent enough to select and invoke it correctly.

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 input schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context about what the returned fee schedule represents, even though there are no parameters to document.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the authenticated account's effective fee schedule.' It enumerates the exact contents (maker/taker rate, fee tier, rolling volume, discounts) and clarifies the forward-looking scope, distinguishing it from realized per-fill averages and per-market 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?

It gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: it returns the effective, forward-looking schedule rate, not realized per-fill averages, and notes that per-market rates differ. It also states that API credentials are required. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools.

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