BinanceWalletQueryUserDelegationHistory

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Query' (implying a read operation) but does not disclose details such as pagination behavior, rate limits, required permissions, or output format. This is minimal transparency for a tool with no safety annotations.

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 directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse, though it is quite terse.

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 has 6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a very brief description, it lacks important context such as the structure of the returned data, the meaning of 'delegation history', and edge-case behavior. The schema covers parameter formats but not the overall tool behavior or response expectations.

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 100% parameter coverage, with descriptions for all six parameters (page, email, limit, endTime, startTime, recvWindow). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 'Query' and the resource 'user delegation history', which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling history-query tools like BinanceWalletQueryUserUniversalTransferHistory or BinanceWalletWithdrawHistory, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative history-query tools, nor any prerequisites or contextual scenarios. It simply states what the tool does without any usage direction.

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