BinanceGetVIPLoanOngoingOrders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is for VIP users (permission context) and that it returns only active loan orders (behavioral filter). However, it does not mention pagination behavior, response format, or rate limits, leaving some gaps 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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by filter options. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (7 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the core purpose and main filter capabilities. It does not explicitly describe return values, but 'retrieve a list' implies a list response. Some detail on pagination could be inferred from the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete, though not exhaustive.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description lists four filterable fields (loan coin, collateral coin, order ID, collateral account ID) but adds no meaning beyond their names; the schema already describes each parameter. It does not clarify pagination or recvWindow usage beyond what schema states.

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 identifies the tool's function: retrieving a list of active VIP loan orders. It uses a specific verb ('retrieve'), a resource ('current active loan orders'), and scope ('VIP users'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like borrow, repay, and renew.

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 context—use this tool when you need to view active VIP loan orders. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., historical orders or other loan status tools). The 'current active' wording gives some context but lacks exclusions.

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