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. It mentions the response structure (total, rows, order details) which is helpful, but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), whether authentication is required, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond parameters, or error conditions. For a query tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 usage guidance, and details the response format. Every sentence adds value, though the response details could be slightly more concise. It's front-loaded with key information, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 complexity (7 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the purpose and response format, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., auth needs, rate limits) and doesn't fully compensate for the missing output schema. For a query tool in a financial API context, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'optional filters' and 'various filtering options', which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional syntax, examples, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 tool's purpose: 'Query all OTC (Over-The-Counter) trade orders with optional filters' and 'retrieve your OTC trading history'. It specifies the resource (OTC trade orders) and action (query/retrieve), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'binance_us_otc_get_order' or 'binance_us_all_orders', which might handle different order types or retrieval methods.

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: 'Use this to retrieve your OTC trading history with various filtering options.' It suggests this is for historical OTC orders with filtering, but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'binance_us_otc_get_order' (likely for single orders) or 'binance_us_all_orders' (likely for non-OTC orders). No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite guidance is given.

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