Binance.US MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read operation ('Query,' 'retrieves'), which is appropriate. It adds useful context about what OCBS is and the response structure, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's paginated (though parameters suggest pagination).

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, provides context about OCBS, and details the response format in a clear bulleted list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the most important information.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does, provides domain context about OCBS, and details the response structure. However, it lacks information about authentication, error handling, or pagination behavior, which would be helpful for a financial API tool.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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: 'Query all OCBS (One-Click-Buy-Sell) fiat orders on Binance.US' with specific verb ('Query') and resource ('OCBS fiat orders'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying OCBS fiat orders, which is a specific subset of orders not covered by generic order tools like 'binance_us_all_orders' or 'binance_us_otc_all_orders'.

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 context by explaining OCBS allows 'direct fiat-to-crypto conversions' and retrieves 'OCBS order history for fiat transactions.' However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'binance_us_all_orders' or 'binance_us_otc_all_orders,' nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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