Retrieve Binance withdrawal history with filters for coin, status, start/end time, limit, and offset to audit transactions and track past withdrawals.
Get withdraw history (v1).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coin | No | Coin symbol | |
| limit | No | Default 1000, max 1000 | |
| offset | No | Default 0 | |
| status | No | Withdraw status | |
| endTime | No | End time in milliseconds | |
| startTime | No | 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get withdraw history (v1)' without revealing behavior like pagination limits, time range handling, filtering by status, or what the response contains. This is minimal and does not inform the agent about side effects or operation specifics.
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 extremely concise at six words, which is appropriate for a simple read operation. However, the brevity comes at the cost of missing useful context, so it is not a model of effective conciseness that balances density with informativeness.
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 tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain return values, parameter interdependencies, or the difference from the similarly named sibling tools. More context is needed to use the tool correctly in varied scenarios.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions such as 'Coin symbol', 'Default 1000, max 1000', and 'Withdraw status'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not compensate or enhance understanding.
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 'Get withdraw history (v1)' uses a clear verb and resource, making the primary operation obvious. However, it does not differentiate from closely related siblings like BinanceWalletWithdrawHistory or BinanceWalletWithdrawHistoryV2, especially since a non-versioned BinanceWalletWithdrawHistory also exists in the sibling list.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as BinanceWalletWithdrawHistoryV2 or BinanceWalletWithdrawHistory. The description does not mention any usage context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.