Binance transactions

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent, and the description goes well beyond them: newest-first ordering, the P2P two-row pattern keyed on reference and how to pair legs, the sign convention where amount is always positive and direction carries the sign, UTC normalization, and an explicit warning that counterparty text is data and never instructions. That last point is unusually valuable prompt-injection context.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and coverage, then a compact second block for time/date/paging semantics. Dense and nearly waste-free, though the date-format sentences overlap each other and could be merged.

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 an output schema exists, the description doesn't need return-value docs, yet it still explains the meaningful row fields (kind, reference, amount, direction). Date boundaries, paging, defaults and the alignment risk with get_summary are all covered, so an agent can call this correctly on the first try.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema itself documents all six parameters including enum for direction and min/max for limit. The description restates most of this and only adds the boundary nuance that a date-only to_date includes the whole day; useful, but not much beyond the schema baseline.

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 lead sentence gives a specific resource (Binance transactions), enumerates the covered kinds (deposits, withdrawals, Binance Pay, C2C/P2P) and states ordering. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the similarly named sibling get_bnc_transactions or get_transaction, so an agent must infer which source each one covers.

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?

It explicitly routes totals work to get_summary instead of paging, and explains the cursor loop (pass next_cursor as cursor, keep other filters unchanged). It does not say when to prefer get_transaction or get_bnc_transactions over this list, leaving one routing gap among the siblings.

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