my-fees

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

The description uses the verb 'View', indicating a read-only operation. It is a non-mutating tool that only retrieves earnings information. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; the word 'View' effectively communicates the safety profile. However, it does not elaborate on any potential limitations (e.g., rate limits, authentication requirements) or return format specifics, which would be additional context. Since the core behavioral nature is clear, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 short and front-loaded: the first sentence states the tool's purpose, and the following list clearly explains the two actions. Each sentence is informative, with no fluff. The structure is clean and scannable, deserving a 5.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the purpose and the available actions. It doesn't explain the exact response format, but for a view tool without an output schema, the return values (total earnings / per-coin breakdown) are implied by the action names and descriptions. It adequately covers the necessary information for an agent to select and invoke the tool, though some details about output structure or default behavior if no action is specified would enhance completeness. A score of 4.

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 sole parameter (action) is fully described in the input schema with an enum and description. The tool description repeats similar wording for each action, adding marginal value but also providing a concise overview. With schema description coverage at 100%, the baseline is 3; the description doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what's already in the schema, hence a 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 clearly states 'View your earnings from coin launches and trading' – a specific verb ('View'), a clearly defined resource ('your earnings'), and an explicit scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wallet or listings by focusing on earnings from launches and trading. The listed actions (summary and by-coin) further clarify the purpose.

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 implicitly communicates when to use this tool: when you need to view earnings from coin launches and trading. The summary vs by-coin action distinction is described. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools (e.g., wallet for balances, vesting for schedules), so no alternative exclusion is provided. This gives a clear context but no exclusions, earning a 4.

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