Retrieve cloud mining payment and refund history for a specified time range. Use it to track mining income and refunds.
Get cloud mining payment and refund history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number | |
| endTime | Yes | End time in milliseconds | |
| pageSize | No | Page size | |
| startTime | Yes | 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only says 'Get cloud mining payment and refund history.' It does not mention pagination behavior, required time-range constraints, return format, or any side effects/rate limits. 'Get' implies a read operation but that is the extent of transparency.
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 seven-word sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified for a tool with five parameters.
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 has no output schema or annotations, and the description is a minimal phrase. It does not explain the returned data shape, pagination semantics, or time-window limits, leaving the agent with only schema field types. For a history endpoint with 5 parameters, this is insufficient context.
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 schema fully documents startTime/endTime/page/pageSize/recvWindow. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 the tool retrieves cloud mining payment and refund history with a clear verb and resource. It is unambiguous and distinguishes the tool from other wallet/mining siblings, though it adds no detail beyond the tool name.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to choose this over other wallet/history tools (e.g., BinanceWalletDepositHistory or mining earnings tools), nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.