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 that the tool 'Returns order history,' which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether authentication is required, if there are rate limits, or what the return format looks like (e.g., pagination, structure). For a tool with no annotations and potential complexity (6 parameters), this is a significant gap in transparency.

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: two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and return value. There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return type but lacks details on authentication, error handling, rate limits, and output structure. While it meets a bare minimum for a read operation, it doesn't provide enough context for the agent to use the tool effectively in all scenarios, especially compared to siblings with overlapping functionality.

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, providing clear details for all 6 parameters (e.g., symbol, orderId, limit with default/max values). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., that orderId, startTime, and endTime are optional filters). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 orders (active, canceled, or filled) for a symbol on Binance.US.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('orders'), and scope ('all orders' including statuses). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'binance_us_open_orders' or 'binance_us_order_history' tools, which is why it doesn't achieve a perfect score.

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 sibling tools like 'binance_us_open_orders' (for active orders only) or 'binance_us_my_trades' (for trade history), nor does it specify prerequisites such as authentication requirements. This lack of comparative context leaves the agent with insufficient information to choose appropriately among similar tools.

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