Binance.US MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Returns up to 1000 orders,' which hints at a limit, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or involves pagination. For a tool that likely accesses sensitive order history, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and a key behavioral constraint ('Returns up to 1000 orders'). There is no wasted language, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of a financial API tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, and the structure of returned data (e.g., order fields). For a tool that likely requires secure access and returns historical order data, this leaves too many unknowns for effective use.

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 has 100% description coverage, fully documenting all 5 parameters with clear constraints (e.g., 'Cannot be used with fromId'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the purpose of 'recvWindow' or typical use cases for the parameters. Given the high schema coverage, 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get all OCO orders (history) on Binance.US.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('OCO orders'), and scope ('all' and 'history'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'binance_us_get_oco' or 'binance_us_open_oco', which might handle specific or active OCO orders, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, such as authentication requirements, or compare it to similar tools like 'binance_us_get_oco' (which might fetch a single OCO order) or 'binance_us_open_oco' (which might list active OCO orders). Without this context, users may struggle to choose the right tool.

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