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 order types supported but fails to describe critical traits: this is a financial transaction tool that likely requires authentication, may incur fees, affects account balances, and has irreversible effects (e.g., market orders execute immediately). The description lacks warnings about risks, rate limits, or response formats, which are essential for safe use.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and lists order types without unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the action from the supported features for better readability, but it avoids redundancy and stays focused.

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 high complexity (14 parameters, financial transactions), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral risks, authentication needs, error handling, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to operate this tool safely and effectively in a trading 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 14 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and enums. The description adds minimal value by listing order types, which partially overlaps with the 'type' parameter's enum. It doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., 'quantity' vs. 'quoteOrderQty') or provide usage examples, so it meets 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 action ('Place a new trade order') and resource ('on Binance.US'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'binance_us_test_order' or 'binance_us_cust_new_order', which appear to serve similar functions but for different contexts (test vs. custodial accounts).

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. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'binance_us_test_order' for testing, 'binance_us_cust_new_order' for custodial accounts), there's no indication of prerequisites, target scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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