binance_spot_order_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses key behaviors: each query is limited to one symbol, time range cannot exceed 24 hours, results are sorted descending by default, and the limit parameter is recommended for large datasets. The provided output example also illustrates the response structure and content, giving agents a clear picture of what to expect.

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 sections and front-loaded purpose and reminders. The output example is extensive but justified since there is no output schema, yet it makes the description longer than strictly necessary. Overall it is organized and readable, but slightly verbose.

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 that there is no output schema, the description compensates with a detailed output example showing query summary, execution stats, and per-order details. Combined with the thorough schema, all parameters and behavioral constraints are adequately covered. The description also includes practical tips for pagination and time-range usage, making it complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and each parameter already has detailed explanations with examples and tips. The main description adds general reminders (e.g., single symbol, 24-hour limit) and an output example, but it does not significantly enhance the parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Thus 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 opens with a clear verb and resource: '查询现货市场的历史订单记录' (query spot market historical order records). It explicitly lists the order states covered (filled, canceled, rejected, expired) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like binance_spot_trade_history by focusing on order records rather than trade records.

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 a '🎯 适用场景' (applicable scenarios) section listing concrete use cases such as viewing historical records, analyzing execution, and verifying account details. It also gives '⚠️ 重要提醒' (critical reminders) with constraints like single trading pair and 24-hour limit. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios, 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.