BinanceWalletWithdrawHistory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but merely restates the tool's purpose. It does not mention pagination, return format, authentication, rate limits, or any behavioral traits beyond the fact that it retrieves history.

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 extremely concise at four words, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to understand, though it adds little beyond the tool name.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is severely under-specified. It fails to explain what the history contains, how status or time filters work, or what the response looks like, making it inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke without additional inference.

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 adds no parameter-level information, leaving all semantics to the schema. Parameter descriptions are terse (e.g., 'Withdraw status' without allowed values), but the description itself does not compensate.

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 resource 'withdraw history', clearly indicating the tool retrieves withdrawal records. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like BinanceWalletWithdrawHistoryV1/V2 or DepositHistory, so it only achieves 4.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as V1/V2 or related history endpoints. The description gives no context on filtering, time ranges, or whether this is the current version.

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