Retrieve sub-account transfer history filtered by asset, transfer direction, time range, and limit to audit fund movements.
Query sub-account transfer history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | 1: transfer in, 2: transfer out | |
| asset | No | Asset to filter by | |
| limit | No | Default 500, max 500 | |
| endTime | No | End time in milliseconds | |
| startTime | No | Start time in milliseconds | |
| 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain authentication scope, whether this is strictly read-only, rate limits, pagination behavior, or how time filters are applied; only the word 'Query' implies a read operation.
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 wording. However, it is so terse that it provides little structure or context beyond the resource name.
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 six-parameter history query with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits return format, pagination semantics, time-range filtering behavior, account scoping, and how this differs from universal transfer history siblings.
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 the input schema already documents all six optional parameters including type, asset, limit, startTime, endTime, and recvWindow. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema baseline.
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 and resource: querying sub-account transfer history. It does not differentiate this from closely related siblings such as BinanceSubAccountGetUniversalTransferHistory or BinanceWalletQueryUserUniversalTransferHistory, so an agent must infer which transfer history is meant.
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 tool instead of alternatives, and no prerequisites, account-scope requirements, or exclusion conditions are stated. The only usage cue is the implied read-only nature of a query.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.