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 and does well: it discloses authentication requirements ('REQUIRES CUSTODIAL SOLUTION API KEY'), specifies the operation's effect (cancels active orders), and describes the response format (includes canceled order details with status: CANCELED). It lacks details on rate limits or error handling.

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 efficiently structured with three sentences: purpose statement, authentication warning, parameter requirement, and response details. Each sentence adds essential information with zero waste, and critical warnings are front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it covers purpose, authentication, key parameters, and response behavior. It could improve by addressing potential side effects or error cases, but given the schema's full parameter coverage, it provides adequate context for safe use.

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 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by noting the either/or requirement for orderId/origClientOrderId, but does not explain parameter interactions or provide additional context like examples for 'rail' values.

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 resource ('an active custodial trade order'), distinguishing it from non-custodial siblings like 'binance_us_cancel_order' by specifying 'custodial' in both name and description.

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 context for when to use this tool (requires custodial API key) and clarifies parameter requirements ('Either orderId or origClientOrderId must be provided'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like 'binance_us_cancel_order' for non-custodial cases.

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