BinanceWalletWithdrawHistoryV2

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only says 'Get withdraw history (v2)' and does not mention that it is a read-only operation, how pagination works, authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects. No behavioral context is added beyond the verb phrase.

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 phrase with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it is arguably too terse to stand alone. Overall, the sentence is appropriately sized for stating the basic action.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, placing a heavy burden on the description. The description only names the resource and version; it does not explain return values, pagination behavior, time/status semantics, or the difference from V1. The schema provides parameter details, but the description is otherwise incomplete.

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?

All 7 parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but it does not need to because the schema already covers all parameter semantics.

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 states a clear action ('Get withdraw history') and identifies the version ('v2'), which directly expresses the tool's purpose. However, it does not explain what distinguishes v2 from the sibling BinanceWalletWithdrawHistory or V1, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool over the many sibling history tools (e.g., BinanceWalletWithdrawHistoryV1, BinanceWalletDepositHistory). There is no mention of preferred use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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