BinanceSpotSubOrders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It uses the verb 'retrieves,' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose rate limits, required permissions, pagination behavior, or what happens if the algoId is invalid. This is minimal transparency beyond the tool's name.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words, making it concise and easily scannable. However, it could include a bit more actionable context (e.g., that algoId is required) without becoming overly verbose, so it falls short of a 5.

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 simplicity (4 params, 1 required) and the fact that the schema covers all parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It does not mention related tools for alternative scenarios (e.g., futures sub-orders) or describe the response shape, but it does convey the essential purpose. No annotations or output schema puts more burden on the description, which it only partially meets.

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 provides full descriptions for all four parameters (page, algoId, pageSize, recvWindow) with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The schema already handles parameter semantics effectively.

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's function: it 'retrieves details of sub-orders associated with a specific algorithmic (Algo) order for spot trading on Binance.' This uses a specific verb ('retrieves'), names the resource ('sub-orders'), and differentiates from sibling tools like BinanceFutureSubOrders by explicitly mentioning 'spot trading'.

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 when to use this tool (when needing sub-order details for a spot algo order) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. It doesn't mention that BinanceFutureSubOrders should be used for futures or that BinanceSpotCurrentAlgoOpenOrders covers current open algo orders, so guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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