BinanceHashRateResaleDetail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Retrieves details' and lists content fields, but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, whether it returns a single item or paginated list, or any permission/error behavior. The pagination and filtering behavior are left to the schema and not described.

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, tight sentence that begins with the verb and lists key included fields. Every word adds value, with no filler 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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description only states what data is returned but does not explain how parameters shape the result, describe the response format, or provide context for use. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's 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%, with each parameter having a description (e.g., 'Mining ID', 'Mining Account', page size/notes). The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions output fields, not how configId/userName constrain the query, so the baseline of 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 clearly identifies the verb ('Retrieves') and specific resource ('details of hashrate resale transactions'), enumerating the included fields (transferring/receiving subaccounts, algorithm, hash rate, date, income). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like BinanceHashRateResaleList by focusing on detailed data rather than a list.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as BinanceHashRateResaleList or BinanceHashRateResaleRequest. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema.

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