BinanceFutureHistoricalAlgoOrder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'retrieves', indicating a read-only operation, but does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or whether any side effects occur. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the operation type.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the essential purpose without any filler. It uses clear, specific language and does not waste words.

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 list-retrieval tool with well-documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain the shape of the returned list or any nuances like pagination limits, which the schema does partially cover. It also lacks clarity on what constitutes an 'algorithmic order' in this context, but this is somewhat evident from 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain how parameters like symbol, startTime, or endTime are used together, but the schema covers their individual semantics.

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 the tool's action ('retrieves a list of past algorithmic orders'), the resource ('algorithmic orders'), and the market scope ('USDⓈ-M Contracts in Binance Futures'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like BinanceFutureCurrentAlgoOpenOrders (current orders) and BinanceSpotHistoricalAlgoOrders (spot market).

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 versus alternatives, such as BinanceFutureCurrentAlgoOpenOrders for open orders or BinanceSpotHistoricalAlgoOrders for spot. It does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The only implied usage is historical futures algo orders, but no explicit direction is given.

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