binance_us_otc_coin_pairs

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 effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get a list'), describes the response format in detail (listing fields like fromCoin/toCoin and min/max amounts), and explains the OTC context and benefits (minimizing market impact). It lacks details on rate limits or authentication needs, but covers core behavior well.

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 clearly, followed by explanatory context, response details, and an example. Every sentence adds value, though the example could be more concise. No wasted text, but minor room for tightening.

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 tool's moderate complexity (read-only list with filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job: it explains the OTC context, details the response structure, and provides an example. It could improve by mentioning authentication or rate limits, but it's largely complete for its purpose.

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%, with both parameters (fromCoin, toCoin) well-described in the schema. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema—it mentions filtering in the response explanation but doesn't clarify parameter usage or provide examples. 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 tool's purpose: 'Get a list of supported OTC (Over-The-Counter) trading pairs on Binance.US.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('list of supported OTC trading pairs'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'binance_us_exchange_info' (regular exchange info) or 'binance_us_otc_place_order' (placing OTC orders).

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 OTC trading to minimize market impact, as explained in 'OTC trading allows large block trades... minimizing market impact.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'binance_us_exchange_info' for regular trading pairs).

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