Binance.US MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates the destructive nature ('Use with caution - this will cancel ALL open orders'), which is critical for a mutation tool. However, it lacks details about authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response looks like (no output schema), leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 perfectly concise and front-loaded: two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds crucial cautionary context. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent 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 high-stakes nature (destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It covers the core action and warning, but lacks details on authentication, error handling, or response format. For a tool that cancels all orders, more contextual guidance would be beneficial, though the cautionary note partially compensates.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value by reinforcing that 'symbol' is required and that all orders for this symbol will be cancelled, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or context beyond what the schema specifies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Cancel all active orders'), target resource ('on a symbol on Binance.US'), and scope ('This includes OCO orders'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'binance_us_cancel_order' (single order) and 'binance_us_cancel_oco' (specific OCO orders) by emphasizing the comprehensive 'ALL' nature of the cancellation.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('cancel ALL open orders for the specified symbol') and includes a cautionary note about its broad impact. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives (e.g., 'binance_us_cancel_order' for selective cancellation), which prevents a perfect score.

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