eterna_compare_fees

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that no credentials are needed, which is a meaningful auth/safety signal, and it specifies the return format as a table with sources. It does not describe data freshness or whether values are live, but the provided context is solid.

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 concise sentences deliver the core purpose, the exact comparison scope, the output shape, and auth requirements with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 relatively simple two-parameter comparison tool, the description covers purpose, input semantics, return format, and credential requirements. The main missing piece is explicit routing relative to the sibling eterna_fee_estimate, but the tool remains safely callable with the information provided.

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 already documents both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds value by clarifying that the comparison uses the 'same volume and maker/taker mix' across venues, which ties monthly_volume_usd and maker_share to the comparison semantics and reinforces the apple-to-apples nature of the tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compare') with a concrete resource (monthly fees) and explicitly names the venues and tier basis being compared. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like eterna_fee_estimate, which presumably focuses on a single exchange's fee estimate.

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 when to use the tool: when a user wants fee comparisons across Eterna, Hyperliquid, Bybit, and Binance for a given volume and maker/taker mix. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as eterna_fee_estimate for single-exchange fee estimation.

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