binance_us_custodial_wallet_transfer_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 required API key and return content ('Returns transfer history with status, amounts, and timestamps.'), which adds useful context. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like rate limits, error conditions, pagination details (implied by parameters but not described), or whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get history' but not explicit). The description adds some value but leaves gaps for a mutation-free tool.

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 with three sentences: purpose, prerequisite, and return details. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value without redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for key points) or refined for optimal clarity, but it's efficient and wastes no 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 the complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, prerequisite, and return content, but lacks details on output format (beyond high-level fields), error handling, or sibling differentiation. For a tool with rich parameter documentation but no output schema, it should provide more context on what to expect from the results to be fully helpful.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples). According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 transfers from Binance.US exchange wallet to custodial sub-account.' It specifies the action ('Get history'), resource ('transfers'), and scope ('from Binance.US exchange wallet to custodial sub-account'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'binance_us_custodial_custodian_transfer_history' or 'binance_us_cust_wallet_transfer_history', which appear similar based on naming, preventing a perfect score.

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 includes a prerequisite: '⚠️ REQUIRES CUSTODIAL SOLUTION API KEY,' which provides some context for when to use this tool (i.e., when such an API key is available). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., vs. other transfer history tools in the sibling list) or any exclusions (e.g., when not to use it). The usage is implied rather than clearly defined.

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