binance_get_convert_order_status

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 valuable context beyond that: it notes the endpoint is SIGNED with UID weight 100, explains that unknown ids are rejected (not empty), and mentions error code -2015. It also discloses the return fields and that status is echoed verbatim. This is strong behavioral disclosure, though it doesn't elaborate on rate-limit handling or output formatting details, which are minor for a single-item read.

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 headers, bullet points, and examples. It front-loads the core purpose, then efficiently covers usage, returns, examples, and errors. Each section is concise and to the point, with no redundant or filler content. The overall length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 single-order status-check tool, the description covers everything an agent needs: when to use it, when not to, the endpoint and weight, the parameter constraint, expected returns, examples, and error handling. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to explain return structures. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 description explicitly explains the exclusivity constraint: 'Exactly one of order_id / quote_id — Binance rejects both together.' It provides concrete examples for both parameter choices. The schema's own descriptions are minimal (just 'Convert order id (from...)'), so the description adds critical semantic value by clarifying the mutual exclusion and usage, which the schema does not fully convey.

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 clear, specific statement: 'Check one conversion's status by orderId or by the quoteId it came from.' It names the resource (conversion status), the verb (check), and the two acceptable identifiers. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating it checks one conversion, not a list. This is precise and unambiguous.

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 dedicated 'When to Use' and 'When NOT to Use' sections. It tells the agent exactly when to call it (after acceptance, after timeout/5xx) and when to use alternatives (`binance_get_convert_history` for lists, `binance_get_convert_open_limit_orders` for resting orders). This explicit routing is excellent guidance.

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