Retrieves the list of cryptocurrency withdrawal addresses saved in a Binance account, helping users verify and select an address before initiating a withdrawal.
Fetch withdraw address list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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. 'Fetch' implies a read operation, but no explicit disclosure of side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or return format is given. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action.
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 with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, earns its place, and is easily scannable.
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 simple fetch tool with no parameters, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks any additional context such as what the address list contains, whether it includes networks, or any usage context. Without an output schema, it also doesn't clarify return details. It's functional but lean.
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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuous). Per the baseline for tools with no parameters, the description doesn't need to add parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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 action ('Fetch') and the resource ('withdraw address list'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like deposit address list or withdraw history. It uses a clear verb+resource structure.
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 exclusions, prerequisites, or related tools like BinanceWalletWithdrawHistory or BinanceWalletFetchDepositAddressListWithNetwork. Usage is only implicitly inferred from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.