yimu-mcp

get_assets

get_assets

Retrieve a user's asset list, optionally filtered by a start timestamp, and return each asset's name, balance, type, and group for ledger review or synchronization.

Instructions

查询资产列表（GET /asset/getAsset/{userId}/{time}），time 为起始时间戳(ms)，缺省 0 全量；每个资产只保留业务字段（名称/余额/类型/分组）。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_assets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`time`	No	起始时间戳(ms)
`user_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations the description carries the burden, and it does add real value by disclosing the data-shaping behavior: '每个资产只保留业务字段（名称/余额/类型/分组）', so the agent knows returned assets are trimmed to business fields. It omits auth requirements and pagination, which is why it is not a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence front-loads the purpose and packs the endpoint, timestamp default, and field-shaping note. Dense but every clause is informative; the raw endpoint path is slightly redundant but harmless.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-param optional read with no output schema, the description covers result field trimming and the full-scan default, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. Missing auth/pagination context is minor for a simple GET.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50% (time documented, user_id not). The description reinforces time as a start timestamp with a default of 0 meaning full scan, and the endpoint path hints that user_id is the target user, but it does not explain user_id semantics or required-ness. Marginal compensation, so baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource (查询资产列表, GET /asset/getAsset) and the endpoint verb confirms a read of assets. It is clearly the read counterpart to save_asset/delete_asset siblings, though it never names an alternative, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the read nature of the call and the note that 'time 缺省 0 全量' explains the default full-list behavior. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs save_asset_history/delete_asset or any stated precondition, leaving the agent to infer.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.