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 does well by disclosing important behavioral traits: the API key requirement, the types of transfers included (ExpressTrade, Custodian, Undo), and the response structure. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication details beyond the API key, or error behaviors, 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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement upfront, followed by prerequisite warning, scope details, and response format. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, and information is well-organized for quick comprehension.

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 read-only history tool with no annotations but 100% schema coverage, the description provides good completeness: clear purpose, prerequisites, scope, and response format. Without an output schema, the response details are valuable. It could benefit from mentioning pagination behavior or typical use cases, but covers the essentials well.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add parameter-specific information beyond what's already documented in the schema, though it implies filtering capabilities through the response field descriptions. No additional syntax or format details are provided for parameters.

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 ('Get history of transfers') and resource ('from custodial partner to Binance.US custodial sub-account'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'binance_us_custodial_custodian_transfer_history' or 'binance_us_cust_wallet_transfer_history' by specifying the exact transfer source and destination.

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 for when to use this tool (to retrieve transfer history from custodial partners) and includes a critical prerequisite warning ('REQUIRES CUSTODIAL SOLUTION API KEY'), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternative tools for different transfer types.

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