Retrieve current trading fee rates for market transactions on the Ultrade platform to calculate costs before executing trades.
Get fee rates
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "ultrade_market_fee_rates"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but only states 'Get fee rates' without any behavioral details. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or static data, or any error conditions, making it inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 concise with two words, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks front-loaded critical details like scope or context, making it too brief to be truly helpful, though it avoids unnecessary verbosity.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple tool with 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what fee rates are retrieved, the return format, or any behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively in a market context with many sibling tools.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, but with no parameters, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate as there is nothing to compensate for.
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 'Get fee rates' states a basic action but is tautological with the tool name 'ultrade_market_fee_rates', which already implies retrieving fee rates. It lacks specificity about what fee rates (e.g., trading, withdrawal, maker/taker) or for which market context, and does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'ultrade_market_withdrawal_fee' that might handle similar 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'ultrade_market_withdrawal_fee' that might relate to fees, the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.