binance_get_asset_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the endpoint is SIGNED with IP weight 1, the response is a map keyed by asset (not a list), error -2015 indicates permission/IP issues, and an unknown asset returns an empty map rather than an error. It also reveals the HTTP client refuses withdrawal calls. This is rich, non-redundant disclosure.

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 into clear sections (purpose, when to use/not use, returns, examples, error handling). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses bullet points effectively. Every sentence contributes to decision-making; there is no fluff or redundant text. The length is justified by the amount of useful information.

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?

The description covers the return format (markdown table with specific columns, 50-asset cap, JSON raw option), error handling (-2015, empty map), usage boundaries, and provides concrete examples. It also references the output schema implicitly. Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, this description leaves almost nothing an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 already provides descriptions for `asset` and `response_format`. The tool description adds practical semantics: 'Omit for every asset Binance lists,' 'pass `asset` to narrow,' and clarifies the effect of `response_format="json"` (raw map). It doesn't fully explain every nuance (e.g., regex pattern for asset), but the schema covers that. This adds meaningful usage context without repeating the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Report per-asset deposit/withdraw status, withdraw fee and minimum.' It explicitly names the endpoint and distinguishes itself from the sibling `binance_get_coin_config` by stating what it does not cover. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's role.

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 has dedicated 'When to Use' and 'When NOT to Use' sections. It gives concrete conditions (checking suspension, reading fees) and explicitly names the alternative tool for per-network details. It even notes the server intentionally has no withdrawal tool, preventing misuse. This is exemplary guidance.

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