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 adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses the API key requirement, explains that OCO counts as 2 orders against rate limits, and describes the response structure. It doesn't cover all potential behavioral aspects like error conditions or execution guarantees, but provides substantial operational 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 clear sections (warning, OCO explanation, price restrictions, quantity note, rate limit impact, response details). It's appropriately sized for a complex tool, though some sentences could be more concise (e.g., the OCO explanation is slightly verbose). Most content earns its place.

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 complex trading tool with 14 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good context: explains OCO mechanics, API requirements, rate limit impact, and response structure. It doesn't cover all edge cases or provide complete output documentation, but gives sufficient operational understanding for most use cases.

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 documents all 14 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some semantic context about quantity (both legs must have same quantity) and price restrictions for BUY/SELL, but doesn't provide significant additional parameter meaning beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does 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 ('Place a new OCO order') and resource ('through the custodial solution'), distinguishing it from non-custodial OCO tools like 'binance_us_new_oco' and other custodial tools. It explains what an OCO order is, making the purpose explicit and differentiated from siblings.

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 when this tool is applicable (custodial context). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'binance_us_cust_new_order' or non-custodial OCO tools, missing explicit alternative guidance.

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