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. While it indicates this is a read operation ('Get'), it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response format looks like. For a financial API tool with no annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that communicates the core functionality and filtering options without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently lists the filtering capabilities.

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 financial API tool with 7 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, response format, or pagination behavior. The tool's complexity demands more comprehensive documentation than what's provided.

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 description mentions filtering by 'coin, status, or time range' which maps to three of the seven parameters. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('crypto deposit history'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'binance_us_withdraw_history' by focusing on deposits rather than withdrawals, though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction.

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 implies usage for retrieving deposit history with filtering capabilities, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like authentication requirements or rate limits that might be relevant for API calls.

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