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 discloses key behavioral traits: the API key requirement (auth needs), the response structure (data array and total), and details of transfer records (fields like transferId, status, timestamps). It doesn't mention rate limits, pagination behavior beyond parameters, or error handling, but covers essential operational context, earning a 4.

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: it starts with the core purpose, includes a critical warning, then lists response details. Every sentence adds value (e.g., the warning is essential, the response breakdown aids understanding). It's appropriately sized with zero waste, meeting the criteria for a 5.

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 the complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, auth requirement, and response format, which helps the agent understand what to expect. However, it lacks details on error cases, pagination behavior beyond parameters, or how to interpret statuses, leaving minor gaps. With no output schema, it compensates well but not perfectly, justifying a 4.

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 8 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'rail' or filtering logic further). According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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: 'Get history of transfers from Binance.US exchange wallet to custodial sub-account.' It specifies the action ('Get history'), resource ('transfers'), and direction ('from exchange wallet to custodial sub-account'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'binance_us_custodial_wallet_transfer_history' or 'binance_us_cust_transfer_history', which appear similar, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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 some usage context with the warning '⚠️ REQUIRES CUSTODIAL SOLUTION API KEY', indicating a prerequisite. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compared to other transfer history tools in the sibling list) or any exclusions. The guidance is implied but not explicit, fitting a score of 3.

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