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 full burden. While it correctly indicates this is a destructive operation (canceling orders), it lacks critical behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the order is already filled. The description is minimal and does not compensate for the missing annotations.

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 with only two sentences, both of which are essential: the first states the purpose, and the second provides critical parameter guidance. There is no wasted text, and it is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 trading operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks information on authentication, side effects, error handling, and response format. For a tool that performs a potentially irreversible action in a sensitive domain, more contextual detail is needed.

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 fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal value by emphasizing the mutual exclusivity of 'orderId' and 'origClientOrderId', but does not provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema already states. 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') and target resource ('an active order on Binance.US'), which directly matches the tool name. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'binance_us_cancel_all_open_orders' by focusing on single order 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Cancel an active order') and specifies parameter requirements ('Either orderId or origClientOrderId must be provided'). However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or explicitly differentiate from alternatives like 'binance_us_cancel_replace'.

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