get_fee_rate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe, read-only operation. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, data freshness). No contradiction with annotations.

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 with the action 'Get trading fee rate'. The parameter list is clear. However, it uses a Python docstring format which may not be ideal for all contexts, but it is concise with no extraneous 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (which likely documents return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details about fee rate specifics (e.g., maker/taker, percentage format) that would enhance completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It provides basic semantics (category: product type, symbol: name, baseCoin: coin) but lacks specifics like allowed values (despite mentioning 'spot, linear, inverse, option' as examples, not as full enumeration), format, or defaults. This is insufficient for precise invocation.

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 'Get trading fee rate' which clearly indicates the tool's purpose. It lists relevant parameters (category, symbol, baseCoin). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_funding_rate_history, but the name itself is sufficiently distinct.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, no context on prerequisites (e.g., specific permissions), and no examples. This is a significant gap for an AI agent deciding between tools.

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