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 effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read-only operation ('Get'), requires specific authentication ('CUSTODIAL SOLUTION API KEY'), and describes the response structure including three specific fields. It doesn't mention rate limits, error conditions, or whether the data is real-time vs cached, but provides substantial operational context.

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 perfectly structured and concise. It leads with the core purpose, immediately highlights the critical authentication requirement with warning emoji, then details what information is returned. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information. The bulleted response format enhances readability without adding unnecessary length.

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 single-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description provides excellent context. It covers purpose, authentication requirements, and response structure. The main gap is the lack of annotations, but the description compensates well by disclosing key behavioral information. It doesn't explain error handling or provide examples, but gives sufficient information for effective tool 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% with the single 'rail' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides ('Custodial partner name (e.g., ANCHORAGE, BITGO). Must be uppercase.'). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the 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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current settlement settings for custodial solution'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'binance_us_cust_settlement_history' (which retrieves historical data) and 'binance_us_custodial_settlement' (which likely performs settlements). The description explicitly mentions what configuration and schedule information is retrieved.

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 about when to use this tool: for retrieving settlement settings specifically for custodial solutions. It explicitly states 'REQUIRES CUSTODIAL SOLUTION API KEY' as a prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools for non-custodial settings.

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