lookup_tier

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('Look up') and mentions returning live status and indexer status, implying no side effects. It does not disclose auth requirements or rate limits, but for a simple lookup, the core behavior is well-transparent.

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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the main action ('Look up a wallet's Ophis fee-rebate tier') and summarize return values. Every part is essential with no waste.

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?

Given the low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, the volume-to-tier mapping, and the return components (indexer status and tier ladder). It does not detail error scenarios, but provides sufficient context for the tool's use.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% as the only parameter 'wallet' is described in the schema. The description does not add any new meaning beyond the schema's 'Wallet address (0x...).' Baseline of 3 applies.

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 states the tool looks up a wallet's Ophis fee-rebate tier based on 30-day volume, specifying the tier progression and rebate percentage. It also mentions returning indexer status and the static tier ladder, which fully defines the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_order or get_quote, which have unrelated functions.

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?

The description implies the tool should be used when a wallet's fee-rebate tier is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, making it adequate but not explicit.

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