BinanceGetBoostRewardsHistory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the data returned (amount, token type, status) but does not disclose pagination behavior, time-range filtering, authentication requirements, or the read-only nature of the operation. The description adds minimal context beyond what the name implies.

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 and front-loaded. Two sentences provide the core purpose and supporting details without unnecessary filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

While the schema covers parameters, the description lacks details about return structure, pagination defaults, or filtering behavior. It gives a partial view of the data (amount, token, status) but does not explain the full response or the effect of optional time-range parameters. Given the moderate tool complexity and absence of output schema, a score of 3 reflects the adequate but incomplete context.

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 already documents all six parameters with descriptions. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema; it echoes the type concept (CLAIM or DISTRIBUTE) but does not clarify size, current, or time parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: to retrieve boost rewards history for staking activities. It specifies the resource (boost rewards history) and the action (retrieve), and distinguishes it from siblings like BinanceClaimBoostRewards (a claim action) and BinanceGetBnsolRewardsHistory (specific to BNSOL). The inclusion of reward details (amount, token type, status) further clarifies the scope.

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, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It implies usage for staking activities but does not explicitly differentiate from other rewards history tools or explain when this specific endpoint is appropriate.

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