Retrieve your Binance futures wallet balance using your API key.
Get futures wallet balance (requires API key)
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "futures_balance"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that an API key is required, but does not state read-only nature, error behavior, or other behavioral traits. Additional context about authentication or side effects would be valuable.
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?
Single sentence, no wasted words. Information is front-loaded and direct. Every part serves a purpose.
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 tool, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It does not explain the return value or compare to sibling tools like 'futures_account_info'. Missing context on what constitutes a 'wallet balance' vs other balances.
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?
Input schema has zero parameters (100% coverage trivially). Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for zero parameters. Description does not need to add parameter meaning; the 'requires API key' note is not a parameter but a prerequisite.
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 clearly states action ('Get') and resource ('futures wallet balance'). Verb is specific and resource is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'futures_account_info', which may also return balance information.
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 mentions a prerequisite ('requires API key') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'futures_account_info'. No explicit context for usage or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.