Binance.US MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read operation (implied by 'Get'), returns specific data structure (bids and asks with quantities), and importantly includes rate limit information (weight variations based on limit parameter). This covers critical operational constraints that annotations would normally provide.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey purpose and critical operational constraints. The first sentence covers what the tool does, the second provides essential rate limit information. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from constraints more clearly.

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 read-only market data tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, return data structure, and rate limits. The main gap is lack of output format details (structure of returned bids/asks) and no comparison to alternative market data tools, but overall provides sufficient context for agent usage.

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%, providing good documentation for both parameters. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the weight variations tied to the limit parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. 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 ('Get order book depth'), resource ('for a trading pair on Binance.US'), and output ('Returns price levels with quantities'). It distinguishes from siblings like ticker_24hr or ticker_price by focusing on order book depth rather than aggregated data.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ticker_book or recent_trades. The description mentions weight variations but doesn't provide context on when this tool is appropriate compared to other market data tools in the sibling list.

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