binance_get_book_ticker

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable context beyond those: the exact API endpoint, weight costs per parameter combination, row cap (100), return format details, and a specific error code. It enriches the safety and operational picture without contradicting annotations.

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 with headings for purpose, use cases, returns, examples, and errors. Every sentence adds actionable information; no filler or repetition. The most critical information (what it fetches) is front-loaded, and the alternative tool is named early.

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 complexity (multiple symbol modes, response formats, weight variations, error handling), the description covers endpoint, rate-limit weight, use-case boundaries, return structure, row limit, and error behavior. With annotations and an output schema also present, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 schema already describes symbol, symbols, and response_format with mutual exclusivity and defaults. The description adds a concrete example (params = {'symbol': 'BTCUSDT'}) and explains the effect of response_format on output (Markdown vs JSON structure), which goes beyond the schema's terse 'Output format.' Since the schema carries most parameter documentation, a 4 is appropriate.

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 precise verb-resource pair ('Fetch the best bid/ask price and quantity') with explicit scope (one, several, or all symbols) and distinguishes itself from binance_get_order_book by clarifying it provides top-of-book size without full depth. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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?

Dedicated 'When to Use' and 'When NOT to Use' sections explicitly name the sibling binance_get_order_book as the alternative for multiple price levels, giving clear selection criteria. This fully covers when to invoke this tool versus others.

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