Retrieve exchange information such as rate limits and trading pair configurations, with optional filtering by symbol or permissions, to configure and validate Binance spot trading operations.
Get exchange information including rate limits, symbol configs, etc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | No | Symbol of the trading pair (e.g., BTCUSDT) | |
| symbols | No | Array of symbols to get info for | |
| permissions | No | Array of permissions to filter by |
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 carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state side-effect-freeness, auth requirements, or response format beyond the vague 'etc.'.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The trailing 'etc.' is slightly vague but does not significantly hurt clarity.
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 annotations and no output schema, so a fuller description of behavior and return values would be valuable. The current description gives only a high-level list of contents and does not clarify how optional parameters filter results or what the response looks like.
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 schema documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics; it only mentions 'symbol configs' broadly without explaining how symbol, symbols, or permissions affect the response.
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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'exchange information' and lists example contents ('rate limits, symbol configs'), making the core purpose clear. However, without explicitly contrasting with sibling tools (e.g., BinanceTicker, BinanceWalletAccountInfo), it does not fully distinguish itself.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. It only states what it retrieves, not use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.