Retrieve current Binance USDⓈ-M Futures position details for a symbol or all open positions, including entry price, size, PnL, and margin used.
Get current position information for Binance USDⓈ-M Futures. Returns details about open positions including entry price, size, PnL, and margin used.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | No | Trading pair symbol (e.g., BTCUSDT, ETHUSDT). If not provided, returns all positions |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the payload shape (entry price, size, PnL, margin used) and implies a read-only operation via 'Get'/'Returns', which is useful given there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about authentication requirements, whether it is a signed/private endpoint, rate limits, or whether PnL is realized/unrealized, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.
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?
Two sentences, no filler: the purpose and platform come first, the return contents second. Every clause earns its place.
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 one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it identifies the platform and summarizes the returned fields. Only the missing auth/rate-limit context and the distinction between position-scoped versus account-wide responses keep it from being complete.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's description already explains the symbol format and the no-symbol default. The description adds no syntax, case, or filtering detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('position information'), and scope ('Binance USDⓈ-M Futures'), and enumerates what the response contains. It does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings such as get-open-orders or get-account, but the resource is unambiguous since no other sibling reads positions.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The 'if symbol omitted returns all positions' behavior is only conveyed in the schema, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.