Retrieves Binance account wallet assets, optionally including BTC valuation and a custom receive-window setting for API requests.
Get user assets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get user assets', which conveys a read operation but gives no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, response structure, or any side effects. This is far too little to be transparent.
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 concise but under-specified. It is a single phrase with no wasted words, but it omits essential context, making it more a case of under-specification than effective conciseness.
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 and no annotations, yet the description doesn't explain what 'user assets' includes, how the optional parameters affect results, or anything about the return value. Given the complexity of the Binance wallet API and the numerous sibling tools, this description is incomplete.
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% for both parameters (recvWindow and needBtcValuation), with descriptions provided in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter details, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema already covers the parameters.
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?
Description 'Get user assets' is essentially a restatement of the tool name BinanceWalletUserAsset. It identifies a get operation but does not specify what kind of assets, which sub-account/wallet type, or how it differs from many sibling tools like BinanceWalletAllCoinsInformation or BinanceWalletQueryUserWalletBalance.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or context where another tool would be more appropriate. The description is a bare phrase with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.