BinanceGetCollateralAssetData

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It indicates a read-only operation via 'Retrieves information,' but does not add context such as default behavior when no collateralCoin is specified, pagination, or any potential side effects. The description is safe but lacks depth beyond the verb.

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 two sentences that are concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core function, and the second adds relevant context about the purpose of the ratios. There is no unnecessary repetition or filler.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 optional params, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient context for selection and invocation. It explains what the tool returns and why it matters. It doesn't describe edge cases like omitting collateralCoin, but the schema covers the parameters, and the description is complete enough for a read-only data retrieval tool.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both optional parameters (recvWindow and collateralCoin), so the description does not need to add parameter-level details. The tool description itself adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema covers, so 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieves information about collateral assets, including collateral ratios and range values for different tiers of collateral.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like BinanceGetLoanableAssetsData or BinanceGetBorrowInterestRate, even though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that ratios are 'used to determine the collateral requirement for various levels of borrowing,' which implies a use case, but this is not a clear directive or comparison with other tools.

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