Retrieve futures position risk for a specific Binance sub-account by email, optionally filtering by USDT or COIN margined futures.
Query sub-account futures position risk.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Sub-account email | ||
| recvWindow | No | The value cannot be greater than 60000 | |
| futuresType | No | 1: USDT Margined Futures, 2: COIN Margined Futures |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Query' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose whether sub-account futures must be enabled, what permissions are required, rate limits, or whether the call returns a snapshot or live data.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately brief but borders on under-specification rather than pure conciseness.
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 three-parameter API tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits key operational context such as whether the sub-account must have futures enabled, what 'position risk' includes, and any caveats about the email field.
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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for email, recvWindow, and futuresType (including enum values 1 and 2). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the complete schema coverage.
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 states a clear verb ('Query') and resource ('sub-account futures position risk'), so an agent can understand the operation. However, it does not distinguish this from the closely named sibling BinanceSubAccountGetFuturesSummary, which likely returns related but different futures data.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as BinanceSubAccountGetFuturesSummary or BinanceSubAccountGetMarginSummary. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing this endpoint are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.