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 mentions filtering but does not disclose critical traits such as pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'limit' parameters), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. For a read operation with multiple parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get a list of all sub-accounts') and adds filtering details without redundancy. Every word serves a purpose, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse, with no wasted verbiage.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and filtering but lacks details on behavioral aspects like pagination, authentication, or response format. While concise, it does not provide enough context for safe and effective use, especially without annotations to fill in gaps.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning filtering by 'email or status', which aligns with the schema but does not provide additional context like format examples or usage nuances. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 ('list of all sub-accounts'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'binance_us_subaccount_assets' or 'binance_us_subaccount_status' by focusing on listing rather than retrieving specific assets or status details. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'binance_us_subaccount_summary', which might overlap in scope.

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 implies usage by mentioning filtering capabilities ('Filter by email or status'), suggesting when to apply these parameters. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'binance_us_subaccount_summary' or 'binance_us_subaccount_status', and does not mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving room for ambiguity.

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