Skip to main content
Glama
trustxai

amazing-binance-mcp

by trustxai

binance_get_account_snapshot

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve daily balance snapshots for SPOT, MARGIN, or FUTURES wallets to reconstruct historical holdings over the past month.

Instructions

Return daily balance snapshots for the SPOT, MARGIN or FUTURES wallet.

Calls GET /sapi/v1/accountSnapshot (SIGNED, IP weight 2400 — a fifth of the 12000/min /sapi IP budget in a single call; call this sparingly, never in a tight loop). Binance only retains roughly the last month of snapshots and rejects windows of 30 days or more, so start_time/end_time are validated locally before the call to fail fast with a clear message.

When to Use:

  • To reconstruct a historical balance curve ("what was I holding a week ago").

  • As an occasional, deliberate call — not for polling the current balance.

When NOT to Use:

  • For the current live balance — use binance_get_spot_account (spot_account.py), which is far cheaper (IP weight 20) and reflects right now, not yesterday.

Returns: A markdown block per snapshot day (UTC date, totalAssetOfBtc, and a table of non-zero balances sorted largest-first, capped at 50 rows per day), or raw JSON with response_format="json".

Windows: start_time/end_time (int ms or ISO-8601) together must span less than 30 days; with only start_time given, end_time defaults to now and the same 30-day span check applies. Either way, start_time itself must be within the last 30 days — Binance does not retain snapshots older than that, regardless of window width. Omit both to get the most recent limit days. limit is 7-30 (Binance default 7).

Examples: params = {"type": "SPOT"} params = {"type": "SPOT", "start_time": "2026-09-01", "end_time": "2026-09-10", "limit": 10}

Error Handling: A window of 30 days or more, or a start_time more than 30 days ago, is rejected locally instead of round-tripping to Binance's "Support query within the last one month only". This endpoint answers HTTP 200 with {code, msg, snapshotVos} on failure (no success field, so the client's envelope check does not catch it) — a non-200 code is surfaced as an Error: here. -2015 means the key lacks Reading permission or this IP is not allowlisted.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds substantial context: IP weight, Binance's one-month retention limit, local validation before the call, and the endpoint's unusual error envelope. It also explains that a non-200 `code` surfaces as an `Error:`, which is valuable beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but densely informative, with clear section headers and front-loaded purpose. Every section earns its place: usage guidance, return format, window constraints, examples, and error handling all support correct invocation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the endpoint's complexity, the description is complete: it covers what is returned, how failures are signaled, input constraints, retention limits, and cost/rate implications. The presence of an output schema means the detailed return-value explanation is a bonus rather than a gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is reported at 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter semantics. It fully compensates by explaining `type`, `limit`, `start_time`, `end_time`, and `response_format`, including defaults, the 30-day window rule, and local fail-fast validation. Concrete examples clarify how the parameters combine.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Return daily balance snapshots for the SPOT, MARGIN or FUTURES wallet.' It also distinguishes itself from a sibling by naming `binance_get_spot_account` as the tool for current balance.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Contains explicit 'When to Use' and 'When NOT to Use' sections. It tells the agent to use this for historical balance reconstruction and specifically recommends `binance_get_spot_account` instead for live balances, citing cost and freshness.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools