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. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: the requirement for a custodial solution API key (addressing auth needs), the institutional context, and the structure of the response (including specific balance fields like 'inSettlement' for custodial accounts). However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or pagination.

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 with the core purpose and critical warning. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second provides a crucial prerequisite, the third clarifies the target audience, and the rest detail the response format without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description does a strong job covering purpose, usage, and response structure. It explains what the tool returns (balances with specific fields) and the institutional context. However, it lacks details on error cases or operational constraints like rate limits, which could be useful for completeness.

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 for the single parameter 'rail', specifying it as 'Custodial partner name (e.g., ANCHORAGE, BITGO). Must be uppercase.' The description adds context by mentioning examples like Anchorage and BitGo, reinforcing the schema's guidance. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description enhances understanding slightly, warranting a 4.

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 ('Get balance information') and resources ('Binance.US exchange wallet and custodial sub-account'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'binance_us_account_info' or 'binance_us_custodial_balance' by specifying it's for institutional custody partners and includes both wallet and custodial account balances.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (for institutional custody partners like Anchorage or BitGo) and when not to use it (standard API keys will not work). It also implies alternatives by noting the custodial requirement, differentiating it from non-custodial balance tools in the sibling list.

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