binance_get_coin_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail on top: the endpoint is SIGNED and costs IP weight 10; it takes no server-side filter, so the coin parameter is applied client-side; the response is capped at 50 coins in markdown but full JSON with response_format='json'; and unknown coins yield an empty result rather than an error. It also explains the -2015 error meaning (key lacking Reading permission or IP not allowlisted). This is rich, non-obvious behavior that an agent needs to call correctly.

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 efficiently organized with a bolded summary, a technical call line, a purpose paragraph, 'When to Use', 'When NOT to Use', Returns, Examples, and Error Handling. Every section earns its place, front-loads the most decision-relevant info (purpose and scope), and uses whitespace/headers to make scanning fast. There is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 moderate complexity (single param, clear output shape, annotations covering safety), the description is complete: it covers the endpoint, auth/rate-limit cost, data returned, client-side filtering, output format behavior, error handling, and examples. An output schema exists (per the context signal), so return-value structure is documented elsewhere; the description adds the human-meaningful context (what the fields mean for deposit/withdraw decisions). Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the only real parameter is `coin` (plus the standard `response_format`). The description compensates well: it explains that `coin` is applied client-side because the endpoint takes no filter, and that passing `coin` narrows the markdown cap; it also explains the `response_format='json'` behavior. However, it doesn't enumerate possible coin values or give format details beyond what the schema already states (e.g., the schema already defines response_format enum). A 4 is warranted because the description adds essential semantics the schema lacks.

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 crisp summary—'Per-coin deposit/withdraw switches, networks, fees and minimums'—and immediately identifies the exact endpoint, HTTP method, and signing requirement. It goes beyond a generic verb+resource by enumerating the actual data fields (depositEnable, withdrawFee, withdrawMin) that the tool exposes, which lets an agent know precisely what it will get. It is clearly distinguished from adjacent siblings (e.g., binance_get_deposit_address, binance_get_trade_fees) by stating what it is not.

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 contains explicit 'When to Use' and 'When NOT to Use' sections with concrete scenarios (e.g., before depositing to confirm depositEnable; to compare network fees for USDT on TRX vs ETH) and names specific alternatives (binance_get_deposit_address for addresses, binance_get_trade_fees for trading fees). It also gives a cost-based reason for calling once and reading multiple coins, which is operational guidance that helps an agent decide when the call is worth making.

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