Claim staking Boost APR airdrop rewards on Binance. Submit a claim request with an optional time window to collect accrued rewards from Boost staking programs.
Claim Boost Rewards API allows users to claim their Boost APR airdrop rewards for staking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recvWindow | No | Time window for request validity |
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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action ('claim') without revealing side effects, idempotency, authorship requirements, rate limits, or what happens if rewards are already claimed. For a state-changing operation, this is a significant gap.
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, concise sentence. It is front-loaded with the core verb and object. Minor redundancy exists ('Claim Boost Rewards' followed by 'claim their Boost APR airdrop rewards'), but it remains efficient and readable.
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?
This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description fails to explain the response format, possible errors, or the concrete effect of claiming. While the parameter schema is complete, the lack of behavioral and return-value information leaves the tool under-specified for an agent to confidently invoke it.
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 provides 100% description coverage for the only parameter (recvWindow), so the description is not required to add param details. The baseline is 3, and the description offers no additional meaning but also doesn't hurt.
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 action ('claim') and the resource ('Boost APR airdrop rewards for staking'). It distinguishes from sibling tools that only view rewards (e.g., BinanceGetBoostRewardsHistory, BinanceGetUnclaimedRewards) by indicating this is the claiming action.
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 checking unclaimed rewards first (via BinanceGetUnclaimedRewards), nor does it exclude scenarios where claiming might not be appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.