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 describes the response format in detail (listing specific fields like asset, amount, type, etc.), which is helpful. However, it does not mention important behavioral aspects such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the parameters, or whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'Get').

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 front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses bullet points to clearly list response fields, and the final sentence efficiently handles the asset parameter default. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the purpose, response format, and a key parameter default. However, it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, and error handling, which would be beneficial for a financial API tool with many sibling operations.

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 documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by explaining the default behavior for the asset parameter ('If no asset is specified, returns history for all assets'), but does not provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema descriptions offer for other parameters like startTime, endTime, page, or limit.

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 verbs ('Get', 'Returns') and resource ('staking transaction history for assets on Binance.US'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'binance_us_staking_balance' (which shows current balance) and 'binance_us_staking_rewards' (which shows rewards), focusing specifically on transaction history.

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 retrieve staking/unstaking transaction history) and includes a specific usage note about the asset parameter ('If no asset is specified, returns history for all assets'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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