BinanceWalletGetApiKeyPermission

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 behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what data it returns, or whether any special permissions are required. The verb 'Get' implies read-only, but the description lacks explicit safety or side-effect information.

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 states the core purpose without unnecessary verbosity. However, it is so brief that it omits useful context, making it efficient but not fully structured for an agent. It earns a 4 for being appropriately short, though it could include more guidance.

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 no output schema and no annotated safety information, the description needs to provide sufficient context for the agent. It lacks any information about return values, usage scenarios, or differentiation from similar wallet tools. The description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly in context.

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 has one optional parameter, 'recvWindow', with a complete description ('The value cannot be greater than 60000'), providing 100% schema coverage. Per guidelines, this justifies a baseline score of 3. The description itself adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 'Get API key permission' clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (API key permission), making the tool's basic purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling wallet tools like 'BinanceWalletAccountStatus' or 'BinanceWalletAccountInfo', which could also be related to API key or account information.

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 any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools like 'BinanceWalletAccountApiTradingStatus' or 'BinanceWalletAccountInfo' could overlap, but no distinction is provided.

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