BinancePortfolioMarginGetInterestHistory

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. 'Query' implies a read, but nothing is said about authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, the 100-record cap, or the fact that results are time-ordered interest accrual records.

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?

One short sentence with no wasted words, and the resource is front-loaded. The brevity is efficient but borders on under-specification for a five-parameter endpoint.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about what a returned interest record contains and what account context is assumed. The fully documented input schema keeps it at minimum viable rather than inadequate.

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%, so size limits, asset symbols, and millisecond time windows are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Query') and a precise resource ('portfolio margin interest history'), which clearly distinguishes it from the portfolio-margin siblings such as GetAccountBalance or GetCollateralRate. It stops short of explicitly noting what it does not cover, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a portfolio margin account), and no reference to alternatives such as the spot or VIP loan interest history tools. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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