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 but only states the basic function. It doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond what's in the schema), error handling, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it safely and effectively.

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 front-loads the essential information without any wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., authentication, rate limits), output format, and usage context, which are crucial for an agent to operate this tool correctly in a financial API environment. The high schema coverage helps with inputs, but overall guidance remains insufficient.

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 itself (e.g., 'email' filters by sub-account, 'startTime' and 'endTime' define a range in milliseconds). The description adds no additional parameter context beyond implying a historical query, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the 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 action ('Get') and resource ('transfer history between master and sub-accounts'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'binance_us_subaccount_transfer' (which likely performs transfers) or 'binance_us_custodial_custodian_transfer_history' (which might involve custodial transfers), leaving some ambiguity about 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), typical use cases, or how it differs from similar history tools in the sibling list, such as 'binance_us_cust_transfer_history' or 'binance_us_cl_transfer_history'.

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