get_convert_trade_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses the 30-day limit, which is a meaningful constraint not in the schema, and the verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, ordering, rate limits, or whether the result includes only completed trades, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 sentence that conveys the core function and a key restriction with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and easily parsed, earning the maximum score for efficiency.

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's simplicity (3 parameters, no nested objects) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it names the resource and the time constraint. It does not explain the return format or pagination, but for a read-only history tool, the essential information is present. A slightly richer description of expected output or edge cases would push it to a 5.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), including startTime, endTime, and limit. The description adds value by clarifying that the startTime–endTime window must be 30 days or less, which is a constraint not present in the schema. This gives the agent better understanding of how to set parameters correctly.

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 the tool's function as retrieving Binance Convert trade history, and specifies a key constraint ('30-day window or less'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_convert_order_status (status retrieval) and get_convert_quote (quote generation), making the purpose 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 description implies usage context by specifying the time window limitation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It lacks clear guidance on scenarios where get_convert_order_status would be more appropriate, so the usage guidance is only implicit.

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