binance_get_account_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it specifies the endpoint (GET /sapi/v1/account/info), that it is SIGNED with IP weight 1, describes the return format (markdown vs json), and explains the -2015 error meaning. This is valuable but not exhaustive (e.g., no rate limit specifics), so a 4 is appropriate.

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 well-organized and concise: purpose, endpoint, usage guidance, returns, example, and error handling are each given a short labeled section. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids any filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with an output schema (present per context), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it returns, how to invoke it (empty params), how to change output format, and how to interpret a common error. An agent can call this tool correctly without further inference.

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 0% per context, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains the response_format parameter's effect (markdown vs raw JSON), provides an example of an empty params object, and clarifies the default behavior. This adds meaning beyond the schema's own (minimal) descriptions, which are actually present but not counted.

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 states a specific verb ('Report') and resource (account's VIP tier and product lines), and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting when NOT to use it for balances or trading permissions, naming binance_get_spot_account and binance_get_api_restrictions as alternatives. This makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit 'When to Use' and 'When NOT to Use' sections, giving concrete conditions (checking VIP fee tier or product-line enablement) and exclusions (reading balances or trading permissions) with named alternatives. This is exactly the guidance an agent needs to route correctly.

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