binance_spot_trade_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: only actual trades are returned (not unfilled orders), each query is limited to one trading pair, time range cannot exceed 24 hours, and both buyer and seller fee information is included. This gives substantial insight beyond the schema.

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-loads the purpose. However, the output example is lengthy, adding many lines of detail. While it aids understanding of the return format, it could have been trimmed without losing essential meaning.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains constraints, use cases, and provides a detailed output example that compensates for the missing output schema. This is more than sufficient 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% with detailed explanations for each parameter, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself does not add significant parameter semantics beyond the schema; it focuses more on the tool's function and output.

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 '查询现货市场的实际成交明细' (query actual trade details in the spot market), with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from order history by emphasizing it shows only actual fills, not unfilled orders, which differentiates it from siblings like binance_spot_order_history.

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 '适用场景' (suitable scenarios) such as cost calculation, reconciliation, and tax reporting, and includes '重要提醒' with explicit exclusions (one trading pair, 24-hour limit). However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, so the guidance is clear but not fully comparative.

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