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 for behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates critical behavioral traits: the requirement for a custodial solution API key (⚠️ warning), the fact that it reverses transfers, and what the response includes (transferId, asset, amount). This covers key operational aspects, though it could mention potential limitations like time windows or irreversible states.

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 a critical warning, usage context, and response details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the bulleted response format enhances readability while maintaining brevity.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, prerequisites (API key), usage context, and response structure. It provides enough information for an agent to understand when and how to use it, though it could be more complete by addressing potential errors or confirming the mutation's effect (e.g., whether the original transfer is deleted or marked).

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 both parameters (rail and originTransferId). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of valid rails or format of transfer IDs. 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 specific action ('Undo a previous transfer') and resource ('from your custodial partner'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'binance_us_cust_transfer' or 'binance_us_custodial_custodian_transfer' which likely handle forward transfers. It avoids tautology by explaining the reversal function rather than just restating the name.

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 reverse a custodian transfer that hasn't been fully processed'), which helps differentiate it from other transfer-related tools. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, keeping it from a perfect score.

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