BinanceRequestForMinerList

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Retrieves a list' and lists some return fields. It does not mention pagination, sorting parameters, authentication requirements, or any potential side effects. This is a read operation, but the description does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior or disclose any limitations beyond what the schema already shows.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the main action ('Retrieves a list') and then lists key details. Every word adds value; there is no redundant or promotional content. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, so the description should provide a robust overview. It lists some return fields, which is useful, but it does not mention pagination or sorting as features, nor does it differentiate from the sibling detail tool. Given that the schema covers parameters, the description is adequate but not thorough.

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 does not add meaning to the parameters; it lists output fields, not input parameters. However, since the schema already explains every parameter (algo, userName, sort, etc.), the description does not need to compensate. The mention of 'miner name, status, real-time hashrate...' is about the response, not the request 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 the tool 'Retrieves a list of miners (workers) associated with a mining account', which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool BinanceRequestForDetailMinerList, which likely does something similar but with more detail. Thus it meets the 'clear but no sibling differentiation' level.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when to prefer this over BinanceRequestForDetailMinerList or other miner-related tools. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided, leaving the agent without usage context.

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