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 discloses key behavioral traits: the requirement for a custodial API key (auth needs) and lists the response fields, giving insight into what data is returned. It does not mention rate limits, error handling, or whether it's read-only, but covers essential operational context adequately.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a critical warning and a concise list of response fields. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool's complexity (custodial order retrieval with specific auth needs), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job by stating the purpose, auth requirement, and response fields. It could improve by mentioning error cases or rate limits, but it provides sufficient context for basic usage without being incomplete.

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%, with all parameters (rail, symbol, orderId) well-documented in the input schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage notes, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 'details of a specific custodial trade order,' specifying it's for a particular order. It distinguishes from siblings like 'binance_us_get_order' (non-custodial) and 'binance_us_cust_open_orders' (multiple orders), making the purpose specific and well-differentiated.

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 includes a warning '⚠️ REQUIRES CUSTODIAL SOLUTION API KEY,' providing clear context for when to use this tool (with custodial API access). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like the non-custodial 'binance_us_get_order,' which would be helpful for full differentiation.

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