binance_symbols

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

No annotations provided; description fills gap by stating results are cached 5 min and free. It does not disclose rate limits or auth needs, but for a read-only tool this is sufficient. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and filters. Every word earns its place, no redundancy.

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?

No output schema, but description covers purpose, filters, caching, and cost. For a listing tool, this is complete enough. Could mention return format but not essential.

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 coverage is 100%, and description adds examples (e.g., 'USDT', 'BTC', 'TRADING', 'PERPETUAL') and explains query as substring. This goes beyond the schema, providing clear semantics.

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 lists/validates symbols for OHLCV fetching, distinguishing it from sibling tools like fetch_binance_ohlcv. It specifies the resource (symbols) and action (list/validate) with context.

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 implies usage for selecting symbols before fetching OHLCV data, with filters provided. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context with sibling tools makes it apparent. Could add when-not-to-use.

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