binance_get_funding_wallet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavior beyond that: the unusual fact that Binance uses POST for this read, IP weight, allowlist requirements, trading kill-switch compatibility, return format details (markdown table, 50-row cap, JSON option), and specific error code meanings. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 long but dense and well-organized into clear sections: purpose, underlying endpoint, when to use, when not to use, return format, examples, and error handling. Every section earns its place, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 tool with a somewhat confusing POST-based read endpoint, the description covers all necessary context: what wallet it reads, how it relates to Binance Pay/Card/Gift Card, when to use alternatives, return formats, parameters through examples, and error handling. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 reported as 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so with usage examples covering empty params, asset filtering, need_btc_valuation, and response_format json, plus return-behavior notes. It could be slightly more explicit about defaults and the optional nature of each parameter, but the examples make invocation unambiguous.

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 ('Read the Funding wallet'), names the exact Binance endpoint, and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools. The 'When NOT to Use' section explicitly routes to binance_get_user_assets, binance_get_spot_account, and binance_get_wallet_balances, so an agent can immediately tell which tool is appropriate.

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 provides explicit 'When to Use' and 'When NOT to Use' sections, with concrete alternative tool names and conditions. It also explains a case where no API exists at all (Binance Card spending), preventing the agent from searching for a nonexistent capability.

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