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 effectively communicates critical behavioral traits: the tool performs a reversal operation (implying mutation), requires specific authentication ('CUSTODIAL SOLUTION API KEY'), and has eligibility constraints ('Only certain transfers can be undone'). It also hints at potential limitations by advising to 'check with your custodial partner'. However, it lacks details on error conditions, response format, or side effects.

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 highly concise and well-structured, with three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: a clear purpose statement, critical warnings, and a reinforcing explanation. There is no redundant or unnecessary information, and the use of warning symbols (⚠️) effectively highlights important prerequisites.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with authentication and eligibility constraints), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, and constraints but lacks details on the response format, error handling, or specific behavioral outcomes. This leaves gaps for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's execution context.

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%, with both parameters ('rail' and 'originTransferId') well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only mentioning 'transfer ID' which aligns with 'originTransferId'. It does not provide additional context, examples, or clarification for the parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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', 'reverses') and resource ('previous transfer from your custodial partner', 'previous custodian transfer'), with explicit mention of the transfer ID. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'binance_us_custodial_custodian_transfer' (which performs transfers) and 'binance_us_custodial_wallet_transfer' (which handles wallet transfers), making the purpose distinct and unambiguous.

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 ('undo a previous transfer', 'reverses a previous custodian transfer') and includes important prerequisites ('REQUIRES CUSTODIAL SOLUTION API KEY', 'Only certain transfers can be undone - check with your custodial partner'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or specify when not to use it, such as distinguishing from 'binance_us_cust_undo_transfer' (which might handle non-custodial transfers).

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