Ставки терминала

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what data is returned (commissions) but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it modifies any state, requires authentication, or could fail under certain conditions. This is a significant gap 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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There is no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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 simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It explains the input (terminal) and the output (commissions for all payment methods). However, it lacks information about response format or potential errors, which could be useful, but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, this is not a critical omission.

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 coverage is 100%: terminalId is already described as 'Идентификатор терминала' (terminal identifier). The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond restating that the tool is for the specified terminal. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action: retrieving WATA commissions for all payment methods for a given terminal. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wata_wallet_rates (wallet-level rates) and wata_terminal_payer_rates_set (setting rates). The verb 'Комиссии' (commissions) with the resource 'терминала' (terminal) is explicit and unambiguous.

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 usage for a specific terminal's rates but does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives such as wata_wallet_rates or wata_terminal_payer_rates_set. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus others, nor any exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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