BinanceGetFiatDepositWithdrawHistory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions fetching history but does not disclose pagination behavior, time range constraints, or that this is a read-only operation. Since this is a data retrieval tool, stating that it returns paginated results (matching the page/rows params) would add necessary context 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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose and output details without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, and the schema clearly documents all 6 parameters. The description covers the output fields, which helps since there is no output schema. However, it does not mention pagination or time filtering behavior, which are relevant for a history retrieval tool. Despite this gap, the overall information is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing the types of transaction details returned, which helps the agent anticipate output, but it does not elaborate on the transactionType parameter values (0/1) or the time range parameters beyond what the schema already provides. This is acceptable since the schema descriptions are thorough.

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 fetches fiat deposit or withdrawal history and lists the key transaction details (amount, currency, method, status, timestamps). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like BinanceWalletDepositHistory (crypto) and BinanceGetFiatPaymentsHistory (fiat payments).

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 clear context that this tool is for fiat deposit or withdrawal history, making it obvious when to use it for fiat-related historical queries. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, which would be helpful given the many sibling history tools.

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