BinanceGetDualInvestmentPositions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It accurately discloses the read-only nature ('Fetch') and mentions batch behavior, filtering, and pagination, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it omits details like authentication requirements, potential errors, rate limits, or return format specifics, which would be valuable given the absence of 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by a concise mention of filtering and pagination. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, with no redundancy 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 no output schema, the description provides a reasonable outline of what the tool returns (status, subscription details, APR, settlement info) and how to refine results. All parameters are documented in the schema, so the description covers the main functional aspects. It could be more complete by mentioning defaults (e.g., page size) or edge cases, but for a straightforward read tool it is largely sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter already described in detail. The description adds only a high-level summary ('Filter by status or paginate results') that maps directly to the schema parameters. It does not provide additional semantic nuances beyond what the schema already offers, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and clearly identifies the resource ('Dual Investment positions'), while detailing what is included (status, subscription details, APR, settlement info). It distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on positions and adding filter/pagination capabilities, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage by mentioning filtering and pagination, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like BinanceGetDualInvestmentProductList or BinanceSubscribeDualInvestmentProducts. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and sibling list.

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