binance_get_exchange_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: the API weight (20), the 50-symbol cap, local rejection of conflicting parameters, and the exact error raised for unknown symbols. It also explains return format differences between markdown and JSON.

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 section headers, front-loaded core purpose, and every sentence serves a purpose. It covers use cases, exclusions, return format, examples, and error handling without redundancy.

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?

It covers all necessary information: what it does, when to use it, what to expect, how to call it, and failure modes. Since an output schema exists, the description appropriately focuses on behavior and context rather than repeating return-value details.

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 itself describes each parameter (mutual exclusions, defaults), and the description adds value with usage examples, the cap behavior, and the clarification that combining symbol/symbols with permissions/symbol_status is rejected locally. It doesn't enumerate every parameter but the examples and notes compensate for the top-level params wrapper having no description.

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-resource pair ('Look up trading rules, symbol status, and order filters') and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling price tools and account tools. It names alternatives ('use binance_get_ticker_price or binance_get_avg_price') for live prices, so an agent can immediately tell this tool apart.

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?

It has dedicated 'When to Use' and 'When NOT to Use' sections, listing concrete scenarios and pointing to exact sibling tools. The guidance is explicit and actionable, leaving nothing to inference.

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