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 effectively discloses that this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get list'), specifies authentication requirements (custodial API key), and describes the response structure including transferEligible and settlementEligible categories. It doesn't mention rate limits or error conditions, but covers key behavioral aspects well.

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: purpose statement first, critical warning prominently displayed, then response format details. Every sentence adds value with zero waste. The warning emoji draws appropriate attention to the authentication requirement.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides excellent context: clear purpose, authentication requirements, and detailed response structure. It doesn't explain potential error cases or rate limits, but covers the essential information needed to use the tool effectively.

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 fully documents the single 'rail' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 'list of assets supported for custodial solution transfers and settlements'. It specifically distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'binance_us_custodial_supported_assets' by focusing on eligibility for transfers and settlements rather than just listing supported assets.

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' which provides clear context about prerequisites. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'binance_us_custodial_supported_assets' or other asset-related tools, missing explicit sibling differentiation.

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