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 states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or the format of the returned data (e.g., whether it's paginated, as suggested by the 'page' and 'size' parameters). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information, making it easy to parse and understand quickly, which is ideal for conciseness.

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 of a financial API tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication, rate limits, or data format, and while the schema covers parameters, the overall context for safe and effective use is lacking. This makes it incomplete for a tool in this domain.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters (email, page, size, recvWindow). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how filtering by email works or the implications of pagination. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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 the resource 'total USD value of assets in the master account and all sub-accounts', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'binance_us_subaccount_assets' or 'binance_us_subaccount_list', which might provide overlapping or related information about sub-accounts, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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, such as other subaccount-related tools in the sibling list. It lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose alone without explicit direction.

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