BinanceGetWbethRewardsHistory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return content (estimated rewards, holding amounts, APR) but does not discuss pagination, time range handling, or any API-specific quirks. It adequately conveys that this is a read operation, but could provide more detail on response behavior.

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 sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key data fields. It is wordy with 'allows users to retrieve' but contains no unnecessary information. Front-loaded and easy to read.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately summarizes what the tool returns (estimated rewards, holding amounts, APR). It does not delve into response structure or edge cases, but for a straightforward historical data query, it provides a sufficient context. The sibling tools are numerous, but the description gives enough to differentiate this tool's specific focus.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the parameters (size, current, endTime, startTime, recvWindow) are already well-documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, making the baseline score of 3 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 the tool's function: retrieve historical reward data from WBETH holdings, including estimated rewards, holding amounts, and APR. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like BinanceGetWbethRateHistory or BinanceGetWbethWrapHistory, which cover different aspects of WBETH.

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 the use case (obtaining historical WBETH reward data) but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives. It lacks exclusion criteria or comparisons with sibling tools, though the context is clear.

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