Binance.US MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm this or mention any authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool accessing financial data with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (accessing sub-account financial data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but misses behavioral details like authentication needs, rate limits, and output format, which are critical for an AI agent to use this tool effectively in a financial 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%, with both parameters ('email' and 'recvWindow') well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain why 'email' is required or typical use cases for 'recvWindow'), so it meets the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

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 ('Get') and resource ('asset balances for a specific sub-account'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'binance_us_subaccount_summary' or 'binance_us_custodial_balance', which might also provide balance-related information, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to balances and sub-accounts (e.g., 'binance_us_subaccount_summary', 'binance_us_custodial_balance'), there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be preferred over others.

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