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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by specifying authentication needs ('requires API key & secret'), which is crucial context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or what specific balance information is returned (e.g., types of assets, formatting). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get account balances') and includes essential context ('requires API key & secret') without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a financial API tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers authentication but lacks details on return values (e.g., balance format, asset types), error scenarios, or usage limitations. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent is left with insufficient information to fully understand how to interpret results or handle edge cases.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description does not need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. It appropriately avoids discussing parameters, focusing instead on authentication requirements, which is relevant context. Baseline 4 is applied as there are no parameters to compensate for.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'account balances', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like binance_market_price or binance_trade_placeOrder by focusing on account data rather than market or trade operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from binance_account_openOrders, which also deals with account-related data, leaving some ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions authentication requirements ('requires API key & secret'), but this is a prerequisite rather than usage context. There is no indication of when to prefer this over other account tools like binance_account_openOrders or market data tools, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List open orders') but does not cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool interacting with a financial API.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of a Binance API tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, rate limits, error cases, and return values, which are essential for safe and effective use.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'for a symbol' without explaining what the symbol parameter represents (e.g., trading pair format like 'BTCUSDT'), its constraints, or examples. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('open orders for a symbol'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like binance_account_balances or binance_market_price, which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as binance_trade_cancelOrder for managing orders or binance_market_price for price data. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves exchange information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for a tool with no parameters.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns complex exchange data. It doesn't explain what 'exchange information' includes beyond 'filters per symbol', nor does it address behavioral traits like performance or limitations, leaving the agent under-informed for effective use.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate since there are none to explain. It effectively conveys that this tool requires no inputs, aligning with the schema's emptiness.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('exchange information including filters per symbol'), making it easy to understand what data it retrieves. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'binance_market_price' or 'binance_market_klines', which also provide market data but with different scopes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name and description alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection among similar market data tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves historical data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, error handling, data format, or whether it requires authentication. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality without any wasted words. It directly communicates the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 complexity of financial data retrieval, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return format (e.g., OHLCV data), pagination, error cases, or authentication requirements, which are essential for an agent to use this tool correctly in a real-world context.

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 description mentions 'symbol and interval', which aligns with two of the three parameters (symbol, interval, limit). However, with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't explain what values are valid (e.g., interval formats like '1m' or '1h'), the purpose of 'limit', or default behaviors. It adds minimal value beyond the schema's structure.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('historical klines/candles'), and identifies the key parameters (symbol and interval). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'binance_market_price' or 'binance_market_exchangeInfo', which might also provide market data.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like retrieving historical data for analysis versus real-time prices from 'binance_market_price', or prerequisites such as authentication needs, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches 'latest price' but doesn't clarify if this is real-time or cached data, whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the response. For a financial API tool, this lack of detail is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Get the latest price') and includes a helpful example. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 moderate complexity (financial data fetching), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication, rate limits, or response format, which are critical for an AI agent to use the tool effectively in a real-world context like Binance API integration.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic context. The description adds value by explaining that 'symbol' represents a trading pair (e.g., 'BTCUSDT'), which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's type constraints. However, it doesn't detail valid symbol formats or examples beyond one case, leaving some ambiguity.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('latest price for a symbol'), and provides a concrete example ('BTCUSDT'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'binance_market_klines' (which might provide price history) or 'binance_market_exchangeInfo' (which might provide broader market data), so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'binance_market_klines' for historical data or 'binance_market_exchangeInfo' for general market info, nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs) or exclusions. This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('Cancel') but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify if cancellation is reversible, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on success/failure (e.g., order status changes). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core action ('Cancel a spot order') and specifies parameters concisely. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (a mutation with no annotations, 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, return values, and usage context. For a trade cancellation tool, this leaves critical gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by naming the parameters ('symbol' and 'orderId') and implying they identify the order to cancel, which clarifies beyond the schema's basic types. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., symbol like 'BTCUSDT') or constraints, leaving gaps. Baseline is 3 as it adds some value but doesn't fully cover the parameters.

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 clearly states the verb ('Cancel') and resource ('a spot order'), specifying the action and target. It distinguishes from siblings like binance_trade_placeOrder by focusing on order cancellation rather than creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from binance_account_openOrders (which might list orders) or specify it's for Binance, though the tool name implies this.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active order), exclusions (e.g., not for margin orders), or refer to siblings like binance_account_openOrders for checking order status before cancellation. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a spot order placement tool (implying a write/mutation operation) but doesn't disclose critical behavioral aspects: whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, if it's rate-limited, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. The example shows parameters but doesn't explain the transactional nature.

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 extremely concise - just one sentence with an example. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. Every element (the statement and example) earns its place by providing essential information.

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 financial trading tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the transactional consequences, error conditions, authentication requirements, or return values. The example helps but doesn't compensate for the significant gaps in context needed for safe operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 7 parameters, the description must compensate but only provides a single example showing 4 parameters. It doesn't explain what 'symbol', 'side', 'type' mean, doesn't mention the 3 required parameters, and ignores 'quantity', 'price', and 'timeInForce' entirely. The example helps but doesn't provide comprehensive 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 clearly states the action ('Place a spot order') and resource ('order'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like cancelOrder or account-related tools by focusing on order creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential alternative order types beyond the example provided.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing account access), when to choose spot orders over other types, or how it relates to sibling tools like cancelOrder or openOrders. The example shows usage but doesn't explain context.

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