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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool queries order status, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or the format of returned data. For a financial API tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 essential usage guidance. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly without unnecessary detail.

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 of a financial API tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, and the structure of returned data, which are critical for effective tool use. While concise, it does not provide enough context for reliable agent operation in this domain.

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 four parameters (symbol, orderId, origClientOrderId, recvWindow). The description adds minimal value by noting the requirement for 'Either orderId or origClientOrderId must be provided,' which clarifies a logical constraint not explicit in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without significantly enhancing parameter understanding.

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 ('Query the status') and target resource ('a specific order on Binance.US'), using precise language that distinguishes it from siblings like 'binance_us_all_orders' (which lists multiple orders) or 'binance_us_cancel_order' (which modifies orders). It directly addresses what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 guidance by specifying that 'Either orderId or origClientOrderId must be provided,' which helps differentiate it from tools that might not require such identifiers. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use context compared to alternatives like 'binance_us_cust_get_order' or 'binance_us_otc_get_order,' leaving the agent to infer based on naming conventions rather than clear directives.

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