Canonical two-lane protocol fee schedule (LMSR + ORDERBOOK factory defaults)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: these are factory defaults read from live config and may not match a given market, which is a staleness/authority caveat not expressible in annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the actionable caveat. The parenthetical enumerations are dense but each carries distinct information about lane-specific fee behavior rather than filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description supplies the one thing the schema cannot: that these are defaults needing per-market verification. Complete for a zero-parameter, well-annotated read tool.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion and would gain nothing by doing so.

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 states a specific resource (canonical two-lane protocol fee schedule) and enumerates exactly what each lane covers (LMSR buy/sell+claim, ORDERBOOK place/taker fee/claim). It is clearly a read of factory-level fee defaults, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the nearby problee_get_factory_config or problee_get_rules sibling.

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 concrete routing guidance: treat these as DEFAULTS and confirm the per-market value via tradingRules on market detail or fee on problee_get_quote before executing. That names the alternatives and the condition that selects them, though it does not state when this tool itself should be skipped entirely.

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