binance_us_custodial_settlement_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the API key requirement and return format ('settlement history with status, amounts, and timestamps'), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'limit' parameters but not described), rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'Get history' suggests it is). More behavioral details would improve transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by a warning and return details. It's efficient with three sentences and no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating warnings into a bullet point), but it's still clear and concise.

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 the complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, and return format, but lacks details on pagination, error handling, and behavioral constraints. For a tool with many parameters and no output schema, more context on what the output looks like (beyond 'status, amounts, and timestamps') would be beneficial, though the schema handles inputs well.

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 fully documents all 8 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'rail' further or provide examples for 'asset'). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate with extra insights but doesn't need to.

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 purpose: 'Get history of settlements from custodial sub-account to custodial partner.' It specifies the verb ('Get history') and resource ('settlements'), and distinguishes it from other settlement-related tools like 'binance_us_custodial_settlement' (which likely creates settlements) and 'binance_us_cust_settlement_history' (which might be for non-custodial accounts). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as other history tools like 'binance_us_custodial_wallet_transfer_history'.

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 retrieving settlement history between custodial accounts. The warning '⚠️ REQUIRES CUSTODIAL SOLUTION API KEY' indicates a prerequisite. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context (custodial settlements) implies it's not for non-custodial operations, which are covered by other tools like 'binance_us_cust_settlement_history'.

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