Fees And Networks

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial context beyond annotations: fee units (percent for trading fees, coin units for withdrawals), what `withdraw: false` means, what `cheapest` denotes, and how exchanges with no data appear under `missing`.

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 front-loaded with purpose, followed by examples and key output semantics. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying either usage or how to interpret the results, with no wasted text.

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 no output schema and a comparison-oriented tool, the description supplies the critical return semantics: units, level-1 fee scope, closed networks, cheapest open fee per network, and missing data. It covers enough for an agent to call and interpret the tool without further context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description reinforces that `coin` enables withdrawal comparison and that omitting it returns trading fees only, but it adds little parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, fitting the baseline of 3.

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: 'Compare trading fees and, for one coin, each exchange's withdrawal networks, fees and minimums.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like ticker, orderbook, or price comparison by focusing on fee and network data.

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 provides concrete example questions that illustrate when to use the tool, such as 'which exchange has the cheapest USDT withdrawal on TRC20?' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the examples give clear contextual guidance.

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