Transfers assets from a master Binance account to a specified sub-account (SPOT) using email, asset, and amount, enabling sub-account funding and balance allocation.
Transfer assets from master account to sub-account (SPOT).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | Yes | Asset to transfer (e.g., BTC, USDT) | |
| amount | Yes | Amount to transfer | |
| toEmail | Yes | Sub-account email to transfer to | |
| 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 burden for a funds-moving mutation. It discloses only direction and wallet type; it says nothing about required master-account API permissions, transfer limits or minimums, whether the operation is reversible, behavior when the sub-account email does not exist, or what a successful response confirms.
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 zero redundant wording. It is efficient, though at the cost of the behavioral detail flagged elsewhere, and could have carried one clarifying clause about the alternative tool at no meaningful length cost.
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 fund-transfer tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: an agent cannot tell what preconditions must hold or what to expect on success or failure. The direction/scope statement is correct but does not cover the risk profile of moving real 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the useful constraint that the asset moves within the SPOT wallet, but contributes nothing about amount precision, the recvWindow semantics, or how toEmail is resolved.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Transfer assets') plus both endpoints and the wallet type ('from master account to sub-account (SPOT)'), which distinguishes it from BinanceSubAccountTransferToMaster and BinanceSubAccountUniversalTransfer without naming them. It stops short of explicitly routing against those siblings, so a 4 rather than a 5.
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?
Usage is implied by the stated direction and SPOT wallet constraint, so an agent can infer this is not the tool for universal/cross-wallet transfers or master-bound transfers. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite call or permission note, and no named alternative for non-SPOT moves.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.