BinanceWalletDepositHistoryTravelRule

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

No annotations are provided, and the description is a bare phrase that adds no behavioral detail. It does not disclose that this is a read operation, how pagination works, any auth requirements, or what the response contains. With zero annotation support, the description fails to inform the agent about non-obvious behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded with the key verb and resource, but it is too terse to provide meaningful context. It is a single sentence without any structural breakdown of usage or behavior, sacrificing completeness for brevity.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, pagination behavior, and the 'travel rule' specifics. It lacks this entirely, making it incomplete for such a parameterized tool.

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 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters, so the schema already explains coin, limit, offset, status, time ranges, and recvWindow. The description adds no parameter semantics, but the schema carries the burden, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('get') and identifies the resource ('deposit history for travel rule'). It distinguishes this tool from the sibling BinanceWalletDepositHistory by the 'travel rule' qualifier, though it does not explain what 'travel rule' means or explicitly contrast it with the non-travel-rule variant.

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 choose this tool over alternatives like BinanceWalletDepositHistory or BinanceWalletWithdrawHistory. No prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended use cases are provided.

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