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 the atomic nature of the operation and its utility for modification, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., what happens if the cancel or new order fails), or the response format. For a complex trading tool with 19 parameters and no annotations, 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, consisting of only two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and utility. Every sentence earns its place by clearly conveying the core functionality without any redundant or verbose language. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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 high complexity (19 parameters, trading operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It adequately explains the purpose but fails to provide necessary context such as behavioral details (e.g., side effects, error handling), usage constraints, or output expectations. For a tool of this nature, more comprehensive information is needed to guide an AI agent effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema with descriptions and enums. The description does not add any additional semantic information about parameters beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the description does not need to compensate but also does not enhance parameter understanding.

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: 'Cancel an existing order and place a new order on the same symbol atomically. This is useful for modifying order parameters.' It specifies the verb (cancel and place) and resource (order), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'binance_us_cancel_order' or 'binance_us_new_order', which handle these actions separately. The atomic nature is highlighted, but sibling distinction is implicit.

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 implied usage guidance by stating 'This is useful for modifying order parameters,' suggesting it should be used when updating an existing order rather than creating a new one from scratch. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'binance_us_cancel_order' followed by 'binance_us_new_order', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive.

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