Binance.US MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but reveals minimal behavioral traits. It mentions filtering but doesn't disclose pagination behavior (implied by offset/limit parameters), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. The agent must infer behavior from parameter names alone.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place: 'Get' (action), 'crypto withdrawal history' (resource), and three filter examples that hint at capability scope. Perfectly front-loaded with core purpose.

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?

For a financial API tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address authentication requirements (critical for withdrawal data), rate limits, error handling, response format, or pagination strategy. The agent lacks necessary context for reliable tool invocation.

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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by mentioning three filter types (coin, status, time range) but doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors beyond what's in schema descriptions, or the meaning of 'recvWindow'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('crypto withdrawal history') with specific filtering capabilities. It distinguishes from deposit-related siblings like 'binance_us_deposit_history' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other withdrawal tools like 'binance_us_withdraw_crypto' or 'binance_us_withdraw_fiat'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), typical use cases, or when to choose this over other withdrawal-related tools in the sibling list.

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