Retrieve a sub-account's deposit address for a specific coin and optional network by providing the sub-account email, enabling correct crypto deposits.
Get sub-account deposit address for a specific coin.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coin | Yes | Coin to get deposit address for (e.g., BTC, ETH) | |
| Yes | Sub-account email | ||
| network | No | Network to use (e.g., BTC, ETH, BSC) | |
| recvWindow | No | The value cannot be greater than 60000 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. The verb 'Get' implies read-only, but nothing is said about required permissions/API-key scope, rate limits, whether requesting an address triggers creation of one on first call, or what the response contains.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the scope noun precedes the qualifier. It is efficient, though so terse that the brevity costs information rather than removing redundancy.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should carry the behavioral load for a 4-parameter authenticated sub-account lookup. It supplies none of the permission, network-resolution, or return-shape context an agent would need to invoke it confidently.
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 all four parameters (coin, email, network, recvWindow) are already documented, and the description only echoes 'for a specific coin'. It adds no meaning about network defaults or recvWindow behavior, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('sub-account deposit address') scoped by coin. The 'sub-account' qualifier does implicitly separate it from sibling BinanceWalletDepositAddress, but it never names that alternative, so differentiation is left to inference.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must guess whether to call this versus BinanceWalletDepositAddress (main account) or BinanceWalletFetchDepositAddressListWithNetwork, and no prerequisites such as requiring a master-account API key are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.