binance_get_delist_schedule

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

The description discloses the exact API endpoint, authentication requirement (API key only, no signature), IP weight, output format details (markdown table capped at 50 rows, or raw JSON), and the meaning of error code -2015. These go well beyond the annotations, which already indicate a safe read-only, idempotent operation.

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, front-loaded purpose, and every section earning its place. It includes use cases, exclusions, return format, an example, and error handling without unnecessary fluff.

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 is complete for an agent to decide when and how to call this tool: it covers endpoint, auth, usage guidance, output format, example invocation, and error semantics. The output schema and annotations cover the remaining structured details, so 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 already documents response_format with its enum and default, and the description references response_format='json' and shows params={} as an example. However, the description does not explicitly state the default output format or enumerate the allowed values, so it adds only moderate meaning beyond the schema. The low schema coverage signal means the description could have compensated more fully.

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: 'List symbols scheduled to be delisted, with their delisting date.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and the domain it operates in. It also differentiates from sibling tools by naming binance_get_exchange_info as the alternative for checking current trading status.

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 explicit 'When to Use' and 'When NOT to Use' sections, giving concrete scenarios such as checking before placing an order and sweeping open positions. It names the specific alternative tool and the condition that should trigger its use, leaving no ambiguity.

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