BinanceGetNFTWithdrawHistory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return fields (network, transaction ID, contract address, token ID, fee, timestamps). However, it omits behavioral details like pagination behavior, time-range handling, or error responses, leaving some uncertainty about what to expect beyond the listed fields.

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, efficient sentence that starts with the action verb 'Retrieves' and immediately identifies the resource. It lists useful return fields without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple read-only history tool with optional parameters and high schema coverage, the description gives a reasonable overview by listing return fields. However, without annotations or an output schema, it could be more complete by explaining pagination behavior or when to prefer this over sibling history tools.

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% and each parameter (page, limit, startTime, endTime, recvWindow) already has a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so it stays at the baseline of 3 expected when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 it retrieves NFT withdraw history and lists key fields, making the tool's purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like deposit or transaction history through the 'withdraw' qualifier, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 such as BinanceGetNFTDepositHistory or BinanceGetNFTTransactionHistory. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, so users must infer usage from the name alone.

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