binance_us_cust_trade_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it requires a specific API key (custodial solution), describes what gets returned (executed trades with detailed fields), and mentions the response format. However, it doesn't cover potential rate limits, pagination behavior, or error conditions.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose first, followed by critical warning, then return details. Every sentence earns its place: first states what it does, second specifies requirements, third clarifies return type, fourth enumerates response fields. Zero 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?

For a read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of purpose, requirements, and return format. However, it could be more complete by mentioning potential limitations (e.g., date range constraints, maximum history depth) or error scenarios given the complexity of financial API tools.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions, maintaining the baseline score of 3 where 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 specific action ('Get historical custodial trades'), the resource ('filled orders'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for custodial trades only (unlike non-custodial trade tools like 'binance_us_my_trades' or 'binance_us_historical_trades'). The first sentence directly answers what the tool does.

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 for when to use this tool (for custodial trades with the warning about API key requirements) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools. It implies usage for historical custodial trades but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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