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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior by detailing the response structure, including specific fields like APR, APY, and staking limits, and explains the conditional logic for the optional parameter. It does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, but provides substantial operational context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by response details and parameter behavior. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, such as listing response fields and explaining the optional parameter's impact, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 (read-only operation with one optional parameter) and no output schema or annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers the purpose, response structure, and parameter semantics adequately. However, it lacks details on potential errors, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which could enhance completeness 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'stakingAsset' well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reiterating the optional nature and effect ('If no asset is specified, returns information for all staking assets'), but does not provide additional syntax or format details. This 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 specific action ('Get staking information') and resource ('supported assets on Binance.US'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'binance_us_staking_balance' or 'binance_us_staking_history' which focus on different aspects of staking. It explicitly defines the scope as returning details about staking options, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage by explaining the behavior when no asset is specified ('returns information for all staking assets'), which helps the agent decide when to use the optional parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'binance_us_staking_balance' or other staking-related siblings, missing explicit differentiation.

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