Retrieves funding wallet balances for a specified asset, with optional BTC valuation, to check available crypto funds.
Get funding wallet balance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | No | Asset symbol | |
| recvWindow | No | The value cannot be greater than 60000 | |
| needBtcValuation | No | Whether to include BTC valuation |
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. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as auth requirements, rate limits, or the structure of the response. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the verb itself.
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, focused sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is concise and front-loaded with no wasted words, earning its place.
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?
The tool is simple, but the description lacks context about the return value (no output schema) and does not clarify how this tool differs from other wallet balance tools. The sibling list is extensive, and the description provides no contextual anchors to help an AI agent choose it correctly.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the schema already explains the parameters well. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters, which aligns with the baseline of 3.
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 (get) and the resource (funding wallet balance). It is a specific verb+resource that is understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like BinanceWalletQueryUserWalletBalance or BinanceWalletUserAsset, which could be similar.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the large number of wallet-related sibling tools, this is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.