Retrieve deposit addresses for a specified coin and network through the Binance MCP Server, so you can confirm where to send crypto deposits.
Fetch deposit address with network.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coin | Yes | Coin symbol | |
| network | No | Network | |
| 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It only restates the purpose without revealing key behaviors such as whether a list or single address is returned, the role of the optional network parameter, or any authentication/rate-limit considerations.
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, concise sentence with zero redundant words or filler. It is well-structured and front-loaded, effectively stating the core action without unnecessary elaboration.
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 lack of annotations, output schema, and the tool name suggesting 'list' behavior, the description is underspecified. It does not explain the return format, the difference from related address tools, or any important constraints, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to use the tool correctly.
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 provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (coin, network, recvWindow), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema already offers sufficient meaning, making this the appropriate baseline score.
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 'Fetch deposit address with network' clearly indicates a verb and resource, but omits the 'list' aspect present in the tool name, making it ambiguous whether it returns a single address or a list. It also does not distinguish from the sibling tool BinanceWalletDepositAddress, which likely fetches a single deposit address.
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 such as BinanceWalletDepositAddress or BinanceWalletDepositHistory. The description does not mention any context, 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.