binance_get_commission_rates

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses the API endpoint (GET /api/v3/account/commission), the IP weight (20), and error handling for codes -1121 and -2015. It also describes the return format and structure. This adds substantial behavioral context about rate limits and failure modes.

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-structured with clear sections (purpose, API info, when to use, when not to use, returns, example, error handling). It front-loads the core purpose and then provides necessary details without redundancy. Every section earns its place.

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 includes all necessary information for an agent to call the tool correctly: the API endpoint, authentication context (SIGNED, USER_DATA), rate limit weight, example call, expected return structure, and error codes. Given the simple parameter set and existing annotations, nothing essential 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 descriptions for 'symbol' and 'response_format' are present, but the top-level 'params' has no description (coverage 0%). The description compensates with an example (params = {'symbol': 'BTCUSDT'}) and explains the return format, which clarifies how the parameters are used. It doesn't fully elaborate on response_format, but the schema's enum and default cover it.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the account's standard/special/tax commission rates for one symbol.' It uses a specific verb (get), identifies the resource (commission rates), and scopes it to a single symbol. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming binance_get_spot_account as the alternative for default rates.

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 includes explicit 'When to Use' and 'When NOT to Use' sections, providing concrete criteria (e.g., 'exact maker/taker/buyer/seller commission that will apply on a given symbol') and naming the alternative tool (binance_get_spot_account). This leaves no ambiguity for an agent selecting the right tool.

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