get_account_fees

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the API-credential requirement, explains that a NEGATIVE maker rate is a rebate paid TO the maker, and flags the `volume_30d_estimated: true` undercount caveat. These are non-obvious semantics an agent could not infer from the schema.

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 deprecation notice is correctly front-loaded as the first token, and every clause (rebate semantics, estimate caveat, auth requirement) earns its place. However, the second sentence is heavily overloaded with stacked parentheticals, making it dense to parse.

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 parameterless read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers auth requirements, return-field meaning, edge-case semantics, and identity of the replacement tool. Nothing essential to invoking or interpreting it is missing.

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 zero parameters, which normally sets a baseline of 4, but the description references a "scope named by `schedule`" that does not exist in the input schema. That stale reference could send an agent hunting for a parameter that isn't there, so it falls below the zero-param baseline.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ("Get the authenticated account's effective fee schedule") and enumerates exactly what is returned: maker/taker bps, fee tier, rolling 30-day volume, active discounts. It is unmistakably distinct from siblings like fetch_balance or fetch_account_summary.

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?

Opens with an explicit deprecation routing instruction: "Deprecated: use `fetch_trading_fees`." It further disambiguates the returned number's meaning (forward-looking schedule rate per `schedule` scope, not a realized per-fill average), which is exactly the kind of when-to-use nuance an agent needs.

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