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: it discloses that unstaking takes time, stops rewards, and may incur penalties—all critical behavioral traits beyond basic functionality. It doesn't mention authentication needs or rate limits, but covers key operational implications.

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?

Well-structured with purpose statement, important warnings in a bulleted section, and parameter/response details. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter listing is somewhat redundant given schema coverage. Slightly verbose but front-loaded with critical info.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well: it explains the action, key behavioral constraints, parameters, and response format. Could mention authentication or error cases, but covers essentials given the context.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description lists parameters but adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'e.g., BNB, ETH' is redundant with schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 verb ('unstake') and resource ('a previously staked asset on Binance.US'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'binance_us_staking_stake' (stake) and 'binance_us_staking_balance' (check balance). It's specific about the action and target.

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 unstake assets) and implicitly contrasts with staking tools, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The ⚠️ section offers important usage considerations but not explicit 'when-not' guidance.

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