binance_get_dust_convertible

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable context beyond that: it explains that Binance uses POST for a query, that the endpoint is on the read allowlist and works even with the trading kill-switch off, emphasizes that nothing is converted, and documents error semantics (empty details, -2015). This is far more than the annotations provide.

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 structured with clear sections (When to Use, When NOT to Use, Returns, Examples, Error Handling) and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. It is longer than many, but every section adds operational value—especially the kill-switch note and error handling—so the length is 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 complexity (SIGNED endpoint, POST-as-query, dust eligibility nuances, two parameters with defaults, error codes), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters through examples, return format, and error handling, and an output schema is present so the return-value details in the description are a bonus rather than a requirement.

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 describes the two parameters (account_type and response_format) with defaults, and the description reinforces this with concrete examples (params = {}, params = {"account_type": "MARGIN"}) and mentions response_format="json" in the Returns section. Though the contextual signal says schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates with examples and usage nuance, so it exceeds the minimum.

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: 'Preview which small balances can be converted to BNB, and what they are worth.' It explicitly contrasts with sibling tools by stating 'Nothing is converted by this call' and points to binance_get_dust_log for already-completed conversions, making the distinction clear.

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 'When to Use' section says to call this tool immediately before binance_convert_dust_to_bnb, and the 'When NOT to Use' section names binance_get_dust_log for prior conversions. This is explicit, actionable guidance that leaves no ambiguity about tool selection.

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