Binance.US MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read operation ('Get'), requires specific authentication (custodial API key), and describes the response structure (records array, total count, record fields). It doesn't mention rate limits or pagination details, but covers essential behavior.

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: purpose first, then warning, then response details. Every sentence adds value—no waste. It's appropriately sized for a tool with detailed output.

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 and no output schema, the description compensates well by explaining authentication needs and response format. It covers purpose, usage context, and output semantics. Minor gaps include lack of error handling or pagination behavior, but it's largely complete for this complexity.

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 no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but implies filtering by time (mentions 'past automatic settlements') which aligns with startTime/endTime. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 verb 'Get' and resource 'historical settlement records for custodial solution.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'binance_us_custodial_settlement_history' by specifying it's for 'custodial solution' (implied distinct API), and from other custodial tools (e.g., balance or transfer tools) by focusing on settlement history.

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 '⚠️ REQUIRES CUSTODIAL SOLUTION API KEY,' providing clear context for when to use (with custodial API). It doesn't specify when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient given the specialized nature.

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