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 effectively communicates critical traits: it's a destructive action ('transfers funds OUT of your account'), includes a safety warning ('verify address carefully'), and specifies a permission requirement ('withdrawal permission on API key'). However, it does not mention potential side effects like fees, processing times, or irreversible nature, which could be important for a withdrawal tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and key warnings in just two sentences, with zero wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by conveying essential information (action, permission, risk warning) efficiently, 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 of a crypto withdrawal tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the basics: purpose, permissions, and risks. However, it lacks details on return values (e.g., confirmation ID, status) or error conditions, which would be helpful for an agent to handle responses. It's mostly complete but has minor gaps in output expectations.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples). The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 specific action ('Submit a crypto withdrawal request') and resource ('funds OUT of your account'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like binance_us_withdraw_fiat (for fiat) and binance_us_withdraw_history (for viewing history). It directly addresses what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 (for crypto withdrawals) and includes a prerequisite ('Requires withdrawal permission on API key'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., using binance_us_withdraw_fiat for fiat withdrawals). The guidance is helpful but lacks explicit exclusions or sibling comparisons.

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