binance_futures_trade_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well. It discloses that only actual filled trades are returned, not open orders, that each query is limited to one contract, and that the time range cannot exceed 7 days. The output example also reveals the response structure, including fee and PnL fields. Missing explicit error/edge-case behavior prevents a 5.

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 well-structured with clear headings, bullet lists, and a comprehensive output example. While it is quite long, every section adds value, especially the detailed example that compensates for the lack of an output schema. It is more verbose than ideal but not redundant.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the return format via a detailed example, covers key constraints, and provides real-world use cases. The output example alone gives the agent a clear picture of what to expect, so no critical information is missing.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds only general mentions of time range and pagination ('支持时间范围和分页查询'), but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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 it queries actual futures market trade details ('查询合约市场的实际成交明细'). It distinguishes itself from order history by emphasizing it only shows filled trades, not unfilled orders, and from spot tools by explicitly saying '合约' (futures). This is specific and unambiguous.

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 '适用场景' section provides clear use cases (cost calculation, PnL reconciliation, tax reporting), and constraints like '每次查询限定一个合约' and time range limits inform when it's appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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