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. It effectively discloses behavioral traits: it's a read operation (implied by 'Get'), includes a critical prerequisite (institutional agreement), describes the return format (listing transfer record fields like transferId, status, etc.), and hints at filtering capabilities (via transferType and asset). It does not mention rate limits, pagination, or error handling, but covers key aspects for a history tool.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, includes a critical warning, details transfer types and record fields, and ends with use cases. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to scan for an AI agent.

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 (a financial history tool with 6 parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, data format, and usage. However, it lacks details on output structure (e.g., pagination, error responses) and does not mention sibling tools for context, which could help in tool selection.

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%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it explains the semantics of 'transferType' (TRANSFER_IN/TRANSFER_OUT) and 'asset', but these are already covered in the schema's enum and description. No additional parameter insights are provided, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('transfer history for credit line account'), making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'binance_us_cl_account' (which likely gets account info) and 'binance_us_cl_transfer' (which likely performs transfers), by focusing on historical data retrieval rather than current state or actions.

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 with the warning 'REQUIRES INSTITUTIONAL CREDIT LINE AGREEMENT', indicating prerequisites. It lists specific use cases ('Track collateral movements', 'Audit deposit/withdrawal history', 'Reconcile account activity'), which helps guide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'binance_us_cust_transfer_history' for non-credit-line accounts.

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