BinanceSubAccountGetDepositHistory

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing. 'Query' weakly implies a read, but there is no mention of permission/API-key requirements for sub-account endpoints, pagination behavior, default page size, rate limits, or what a returned record contains. For an 8-parameter authenticated endpoint with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words, but it is terse to the point of under-specification for a tool with eight parameters. Brevity is achieved at the cost of the information an agent needs.

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 8 parameters, a required email, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough: it never mentions the required sub-account identifier, the time-window/status filters, or pagination limits (default 500, max 500). An agent could plausibly call it without the mandatory email field.

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 every parameter (email, coin, status enum values, time range in ms, limit/offset, recvWindow) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which meets the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Query sub-account deposit history'), and the 'sub-account' qualifier implicitly separates it from the account-level sibling BinanceWalletDepositHistory. It stops short of naming that alternative explicitly, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus BinanceWalletDepositHistory, BinanceSubAccountGetTransferHistory, or BinanceSubAccountGetUniversalTransferHistory, and no note that the sub-account email is a hard prerequisite. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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