BinanceRequestForDetailMinerList

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It discloses the type of data returned (hourly and daily metrics), which is useful. However, it does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., mining account auth), potential errors, or whether the data is historical or real-time. There is no contradiction, but more context would be beneficial.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and then adds relevant detail. Every word is purposeful, and it is no longer than necessary to convey the tool's function.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate for a basic retrieval tool. It explains what data is returned but lacks details on response structure, time ranges, or prerequisites. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the core function but not fully complete for nuanced invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds some context about the metrics returned, which indirectly helps understand the purpose of parameters like workerName and algo, but it does not add substantial parameter semantics beyond the schema. 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 states the action ('Retrieves detailed hashrate data') and the resource ('a specific miner'), and specifies the granularity (hourly and daily) and example metrics (time, hashrate, rejection rate). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like BinanceRequestForMinerList, which likely lists miners.

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. It implies use for a specific miner's detail, but does not mention exclusions or alternatives, such as using a list tool first or a different tool for other data. The description leaves the context of use to be inferred.

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