binance_us_cust_order_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the requirement for a custodial API key (auth needs), the default behavior for missing 'symbol' parameter, and details about the response format (array of orders with specific fields). It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but covers essential operational context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a critical warning and key usage notes. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action, the second highlights a prerequisite, and the last two explain parameter behavior and response details. No wasted words.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering auth requirements, parameter defaults, and response structure. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or pagination for the array response, which would be helpful for a tool with 6 parameters and historical data retrieval.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by clarifying the default behavior for 'symbol' when omitted, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('historical custodial trade orders'), making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'binance_us_cust_open_orders' (current orders) and 'binance_us_cust_trade_history' (trades vs. orders) by focusing on historical orders, though not explicitly named.

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 with the warning about requiring a custodial API key and explains the default behavior when 'symbol' is omitted. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'binance_us_cust_open_orders' or 'binance_us_cust_trade_history', missing explicit sibling differentiation.

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