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 and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a read operation (implied by 'Get'), it returns specific status values (SUCCESS, PROCESS, etc.), and details the response structure including 8 specific fields. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions that would be helpful for a financial API tool.

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 perfectly structured and front-loaded: first sentence states the core purpose, second provides usage context, then bullet points detail the response format. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words. The bulleted list efficiently communicates complex return data without verbose explanation.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides excellent context: clear purpose, usage guidance, and detailed response structure. The main gap is lack of authentication/rate limit information which would be valuable for a financial API. However, given the tool's simplicity and the comprehensive response documentation, it's mostly complete.

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% with the single parameter 'orderId' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what the schema provides (both mention it's an OTC order ID), so it meets the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting. No additional syntax or format details are provided.

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 with specific verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('specific OTC trade order'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'binance_us_otc_all_orders' (which lists orders) and 'binance_us_otc_place_order' (which creates orders). It explicitly identifies the scope as OTC trades, which is distinct from regular exchange tools.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('to check the status and details of a previously placed OTC order'), but doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives. It implies usage for existing orders rather than new ones, but lacks explicit exclusions or comparison with similar tools like 'binance_us_get_order' (non-OTC).

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