Views SOL staking account details, including BNSOL holdings, equivalent SOL balance, and 30-day SOL profit, to track staking performance.
SOL Staking Account API allows users to view their SOL staking account details, including their current BNSOL holdings, equivalent SOL balance, and the profit in SOL over the past 30 days.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recvWindow | No | Time window for request validity |
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 whether the tool has side effects. The name 'register' suggests a state-changing operation, but the description describes a read-only 'view'. This contradiction misleads agents about the tool's behavior. No mention of permissions, irreversibility, or output details.
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 (one sentence) and front-loads the resource, but it is vague and misleading due to the name mismatch. While it avoids waste, it lacks the precision needed for effective tool invocation.
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 description is inadequate for an agent to properly select and invoke this tool. It does not explain what 'register' means, what the API returns, or how it differs from related staking tools. The absence of an output schema and annotations makes the description the primary source of context, and it fails to deliver.
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 the single parameter (recvWindow), which is clearly described as 'Time window for request validity'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, so a baseline score of 3 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 states it allows users to 'view' SOL staking account details, but the tool name is 'registerBinanceSolStakingAccount', implying creation/registration. This is misleading and fails to state an accurate verb for the tool's action. The description also does not distinguish it from sibling tools like BinanceGetSolStakingHistory or BinanceSubscribeSolStaking.
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 does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. The only content is a functional description with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.