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 of behavioral disclosure. It does well by specifying the authentication requirement ('REQUIRES CUSTODIAL SOLUTION API KEY') and describing the return format ('Returns transfer history with status, amounts, and timestamps'). However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get history' but not explicit), pagination behavior (though the schema hints at it), rate limits, or error conditions.

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. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides critical authentication information with appropriate warning emoji, and the third describes the return format. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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 tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the purpose, authentication requirement, and return format basics, but doesn't address the tool's behavioral profile (read-only vs. mutating, side effects), error handling, or provide guidance on parameter combinations. The 100% schema coverage helps, but more behavioral context would be beneficial given the complexity.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema - it mentions 'ExpressTrade and Undo transfers' which relates to the 'expressTradeTransfer' parameter, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter usage or relationships. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 custodial partner, including ExpressTrade and Undo transfers.' It specifies the verb ('Get history'), resource ('transfers from custodial partner'), and scope ('including ExpressTrade and Undo transfers'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'binance_us_custodial_custodian_transfer' (which likely performs transfers rather than retrieving history).

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: for retrieving transfer history from custodial partners. It explicitly mentions '⚠️ REQUIRES CUSTODIAL SOLUTION API KEY' as a prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., 'binance_us_custodial_wallet_transfer_history' might be a related alternative).

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