Tool questions aren't fundamentally non-constructive
I disagree that questions asking for tools are inherently not-constructive. For example, while the poster here did ask for a tool, his real problem is not "I need a tool to..." but "...measure code coverage of a binary without source code".
I doubt people would say that "How can you measure code coverage of a binary without source code?" is inherently non-constructive. And yet it may very well be answerable with a "Here's a tool that does what you want." The others' arguments apply equally to that question, even though it is not asking for a tool. For that matter, they apply to a fair number of upvoted questions on SO.
Nothing wrong with questions that could possibly have multiple solutions
The argument seems to boil down to, "This type of question might have multiple valid solutions. Ergo all solutions are equally good, so non-constructive." That's the sorites fallacy. Posters are supposed to accept the answer most helpful to them, and it's perfectly fine for them to use their subjective judgement in choosing.
And besides, prima facie, for all we know there might be 0 or 1 tools that do what he wants. Looks to me that the task here is quite specialized, so I doubt there are many tools for it.
"Extended debate" reason is a red herring
The clause "this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion." is supposed to prevent people from using Stack Exchange as a debate forum. Whereas a political debate may lead to continued interaction and go in circles, it doesn't look like this sort of question is likely to. It could be answered by, "Here's a tool, and this is how to use it to do what you asked." No need to debate any other answerers, and neither would I expect a debate to ensue.
Don't be trigger-happy
Finally, don't close just because it was formulated as "I need a tool to..." as opposed to "Does a tool exist to..." or "How can one..."; rather, edit it into shape. I have attempted to do so, editing out the explicit requests for tools that people seem to be hung up on.
That said, this question can be improved
In particular, it currently has little information about your setup. For example, what platform (Windows PE, Linux ELF, Java Native Interface) is the executable for? What language was it written in (tools for C vs. Haskell would be quite different)? Specifying these will help people answer.
(George Stocker found a duplicate, so I guess this is moot; it would be closed anyway. But the policy discussion is still relevant.)