trading_balanceRetrieve total asset balances in your Binance futures account, including unrealized PnL, to monitor available funds and position health.
返回：账户全部资产余额（含未实现盈亏）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.1Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "asset": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "availableBalance": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "balance": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "crossWalletBalance": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "unrealizedProfit": {
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "asset",
+ "balance",
+ "availableBalance",
+ "crossWalletBalance",
+ "unrealizedProfit"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "data"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}v2.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral scope by specifying '全部资产余额' and including unrealized P&L, with no contradiction to 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?
One short sentence with no filler. The key information is front-loaded, and every part of the description 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 parameterless read-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations already provided, the description is complete. It states exactly what is returned and that unrealized P&L is included, leaving no invoke-time ambiguity.
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 zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter details are needed from the description. The baseline 4 applies because there are no parameters whose meaning could be ambiguous.
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?
Description specifies a verb (返回) and a clear resource (账户全部资产余额), and further clarifies the return content with 含未实现盈亏. This distinguishes it from related siblings like trading_positions and trading_account, even without explicitly naming them.
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 intended use is implied by the tool name and description: any time an agent needs the account's full asset balance including unrealized P&L. However, there is no explicit guidance or exclusion pointing to alternatives such as trading_positions or trading_account.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.