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 what the tool returns (history of rewards with specific fields) and clarifies the default behavior when no asset is specified. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the parameters, or error conditions.

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 with the core purpose in the first sentence. Every subsequent sentence adds valuable information about the response format, record structure, and default behavior without any wasted words. The bulleted lists enhance readability while maintaining efficiency.

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 provides adequate coverage of what the tool does and returns. However, it lacks important contextual information about authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, and the relationship between pagination parameters that would be necessary for complete understanding by an AI agent.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the asset parameter's default behavior ('If no asset is specified, returns rewards for all staked assets'), but doesn't provide additional context about time formats, pagination strategy, or parameter interactions. 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 rewards history') and resource ('for 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 provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 the tool ('Get staking rewards history') and includes an implicit alternative by noting 'If no asset is specified, returns rewards for all staked assets.' However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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