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 mentions the return data (price, quantity, etc.) but lacks critical details: authentication requirements (likely needed for personal trade data), rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' parameter but not explained), error handling, or whether it's read-only. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in 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 and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the tool's function and return data. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (personal trade data retrieval with 7 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address authentication needs, rate limits, error cases, or detailed return structure (beyond high-level fields). For a tool likely requiring API keys and returning sensitive data, this leaves critical gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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 7 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying filtering by trading pair ('specific trading pair'), which is already covered by the 'symbol' parameter in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage, but doesn't enhance 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 tool's purpose: 'Get trade history for a specific trading pair.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('trade history'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'binance_us_historical_trades' by focusing on personal trades rather than market-wide data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'binance_us_cust_trade_history', which might be a similar sibling tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), compare it to sibling tools like 'binance_us_cust_trade_history' or 'binance_us_historical_trades', or specify use cases beyond retrieving trade history. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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