Binance.US MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly states this is a cancellation operation (destructive action), specifies it cancels both legs of the OCO order, and describes the response format. It also mentions the API key requirement. However, it doesn't cover potential errors, rate limits, or confirmation of successful cancellation beyond the response details.

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 with three clear sections: purpose statement, warning, and response details. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information. However, the warning emoji and formatting slightly reduce pure conciseness, though they add useful emphasis.

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?

For a cancellation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the essential context: what it does, that it's destructive, the API requirement, and response format. It could be more complete by mentioning potential side effects or error conditions, but it provides sufficient information for basic usage.

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 all 5 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the relationship between orderListId and listClientOrderId, or when to use newClientOrderId. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 an entire OCO order list') and identifies the resource (OCO orders). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'binance_us_cancel_oco' (non-custodial version) and 'binance_us_cancel_order' (single order cancellation) by specifying it's for custodial OCO orders.

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 CUSTODIAL SOLUTION API KEY,' indicating this is specifically for custodial accounts. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus the non-custodial 'binance_us_cancel_oco' or other cancellation tools, though the custodial requirement implies the distinction.

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