Retrieve a summary of spot asset balances for Binance sub-accounts from the master account, with optional email filtering and pagination.
Query sub-account spot assets summary for master account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number, default 1 | |
| size | No | Results per page, default 10, max 20 | |
| No | Sub-account email (optional, returns all if not provided) | ||
| recvWindow | No | The value cannot be greater than 60000 |
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 carries the full disclosure burden. It does not state that master-account credentials are required, whether the call is rate-limited, whether results are paginated across sub-accounts, or what the summary contains — leaving a read-only-sounding but unverified query with minimal behavioral context.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the usage and behavioral detail noted elsewhere.
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 four-parameter, zero-required read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description states the subject but not the response shape or pagination semantics. The fully covered input schema offsets some of this, but key behavioral context is still missing.
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%, so page, size, email, and recvWindow are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Query sub-account spot assets summary') and scopes it to the master account. The word 'spot' implicitly separates it from siblings such as BinanceSubAccountGetMarginSummary and BinanceSubAccountGetFuturesSummary, though those alternatives are never named.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this versus the margin, futures, or general asset-list siblings, and no stated prerequisites beyond the vague phrase 'for master account'. The agent must infer that a master-account key is required and that other summaries exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.