binance_get_deposit_address

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds critical behavioral context: omitting network returns default (not always desired), sending to wrong network loses funds, and error handling details like -2015. This goes well beyond the annotation safety profile, covering risk 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 longer but well-structured with clear sections: purpose, API call, warning, when-to-use/not-use, returns, examples, and error handling. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and each section earns its place, especially given the risk of fund loss. Slightly verbose but justified.

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 risk and multiple parameters, the description covers purpose, usage, warnings, return formats, examples, and error handling. It mentions key output fields and the response_format option. With an output schema present, it needn't detail every field. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 high (each parameter has a description in the input schema), so baseline is 3. The description adds examples and clarifies the network omission behavior, but does not describe each parameter beyond what the schema already provides. It adds value through examples and risk warning, but not new parameter semantics.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Get the deposit address for one coin on one network.' It explicitly names the API endpoint and differentiates from siblings by naming binance_get_deposit_addresses and binance_get_coin_config. This gives an agent unambiguous purpose and scope.

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, stating to use it before sending crypto into Binance and to avoid it for viewing all addresses or checking deposit enablement, with alternatives named. This leaves no inference for the agent.

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