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 specifies the time window ('5-minute rolling weighted average') but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the format of the response. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Get current 5-minute rolling weighted average price') with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, 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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete but lacks depth. It covers the basic purpose and parameter context but omits behavioral details like response format or error cases. For a read-only price-fetching tool, this is adequate but not thorough, as it relies heavily on the schema for parameter info.

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, with the 'symbol' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any extra semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid symbols or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('current 5-minute rolling weighted average price'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'binance_us_ticker_price' or 'binance_us_rolling_window', which might also provide price-related data, leaving some ambiguity about uniqueness.

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, such as other price-fetching tools in the sibling list. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name and description alone.

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