BinanceGetBnsolRewardsHistory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the response fields (amount, token type, status), but does not mention pagination, authentication requirements, rate limits, or that results are paginated. It is a read operation but lacks explicit disclosure of other behavioral aspects.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and then adds detail. It is efficient with no fluff, but could be more structured by separating the purpose from the return value description.

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 description does not compensate for the lack of output schema or sibling differentiation. It fails to mention pagination behavior, optional time filters, or how this tool differs from BinanceGetBoostRewardsHistory. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds marginal value by giving examples of token type (SOL) and status values (CLAIM, DISTRIBUTE), but these are already present in the enum descriptions. No extra parameter semantics are provided.

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 retrieves historical boost rewards data for staking, including amount, token type, and status. It uses specific verbs and resource, but it does not distinguish this from the similarly named sibling BinanceGetBoostRewardsHistory, which appears to serve the same function.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as BinanceGetBoostRewardsHistory or BinanceGetUnclaimedRewards. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be chosen over other reward-related tools.

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