BinanceGetNFTTransactionHistory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'retrieves' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention pagination behavior, time range handling, rate limits, required permissions, or any side effects. The description is thin on behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 consists of two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action and then detail the return contents. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy or wasted 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?

Given no output schema, the description includes valuable return attributes (NFT network, token IDs, contract addresses, times, amounts, currencies). However, it omits behavioral context like pagination defaults or time range filtering, which are only in the schema. For a moderately complex tool, it is sufficiently complete but could mention date filtering or pagination behavior.

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 lists the types of orders (matching the orderType parameter) and return attributes, but it doesn't add detail beyond what the schema already provides for parameters. It reinforces the meaning of orderType but doesn't compensate for any missing schema information.

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 NFT transaction history and enumerates specific transaction types (purchase, sale, royalty, primary market, mint fees). It differentiates from sibling NFT tools like deposit/withdraw history by focusing on trade-related history. The verb 'retrieves' is specific and 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 listing the transaction types covered, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as BinanceGetNFTDepositHistory or BinanceGetNFTWithdrawHistory. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so usage guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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