List Binance symbols

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context: results are cached 5 minutes in-process and the call is free, which tells the agent about latency and rate-limit risk that annotations do not convey.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then filters, then caching/cost note in a tight two-sentence block. The filter enumeration is somewhat duplicative of the schema but stays short and readable.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say what a result row contains (symbol, base/quote asset, status, market) and it does not; it also omits the 'limit' parameter and its default of 200. Caching and cost are covered, but the return shape is left unspecified.

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 every filter (query, quote_asset, base_asset, status, contract_type) is already documented in the schema, and the description largely repeats those examples. It adds no new semantics such as matching rules beyond substring, or the meaning of the required 'market' param relative to 'contract_type'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List/validate symbols') plus the scope ('Binance public API') and the downstream purpose ('for OHLCV fetching'), which ties it to the sibling fetch_binance_ohlcv. It does not explicitly name a sibling it excludes, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'for OHLCV fetching' implies this is the lookup step before fetching candles, and 'contract_type (futures only)' hints at a market precondition. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not, and no alternative tool named.

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