Binance.US MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool queries an OCO order, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the response includes. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides critical parameter guidance. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple query tool, earning its place efficiently.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely involves API calls with authentication and rate limits. It covers the basic purpose and parameter requirement but lacks details on behavior, response format, or error conditions, which are essential for an agent to use it effectively in 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (orderListId, origClientOrderId, recvWindow). The description adds minimal value by emphasizing the 'either/or' requirement for the first two parameters, but doesn't provide additional context like format examples or usage scenarios beyond what the schema states.

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 action ('Query') and resource ('a specific OCO order on Binance.US'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'binance_us_all_oco_orders' (which likely lists all OCO orders) or 'binance_us_get_order' (which queries regular orders), missing full sibling 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 provides implied usage by stating 'Either orderListId or origClientOrderId must be provided,' which suggests when to use this tool (when you have one of these IDs). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'binance_us_all_oco_orders' or 'binance_us_get_order,' and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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