Retrieve Binance deposit history filtered by coin, status, and time range to track incoming crypto transactions and reconcile wallet deposits.
Get deposit history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coin | No | Coin symbol | |
| limit | No | Number of records to return | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset | |
| status | No | Deposit status | |
| endTime | No | End time in milliseconds | |
| startTime | No | Start time in milliseconds | |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description only says 'get' and provides no disclosure of authentication requirements, return format, pagination, or status interpretation. It does not contradict the schema but adds minimal behavioral context beyond the operation itself.
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 extremely terse and front-loaded with no filler, but it is under-specified for a tool with seven optional parameters. It reads more like a title than a specification, though it does not contain unnecessary words.
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?
The description provides virtually no context about the response structure, which is critical since no output schema is provided. An agent would not know whether this returns an array of deposits, how status codes are represented, or how pagination is handled, leaving a major gap for a wallet API tool.
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?
All seven parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about how coin, status, time range, and pagination parameters interact, but the schema covers their individual meanings.
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 uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (deposit history), clearly stating the tool's basic function. However, it does not distinguish this from the closely-related BinanceWalletDepositHistoryTravelRule and mostly paraphrases the tool name.
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 like BinanceWalletWithdrawHistory or BinanceWalletDepositAddress. The usage is only implied by the name, with no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.