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 full burden. It explains the OCO mechanism ('When one triggers, the other is automatically cancelled'), which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on partial fills. For a trading tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains OCO mechanics, and the third provides key usage rules. It is front-loaded with the main action, though the price relationship note could be more integrated.

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 complex trading tool with 16 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses critical context like response format, error conditions, authentication needs, and market impact. The OCO explanation helps, but more behavioral and operational details are needed for safe agent use.

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 16 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning price relationships for BUY/SELL OCOs, but does not explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantic context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Place a new OCO order') and resource ('on Binance.US'), and explains what an OCO order is ('combine a limit order with a stop-loss order'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on OCO orders specifically, unlike general order tools like 'binance_us_new_order'.

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 OCO orders but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'binance_us_new_order' or 'binance_us_cust_oco_order'. It provides some contextual guidance with price relationship rules for BUY/SELL, but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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