Skip to main content
Glama
trustxai

amazing-binance-mcp

by trustxai

binance_get_deposit_addresses

Read-onlyIdempotent

List all deposit addresses issued for a coin across networks to audit or recognize previously used addresses. Returns a table of network, address, tag, and default status.

Instructions

List every deposit address issued for one coin, across networks.

Calls GET /sapi/v1/capital/deposit/address/list (SIGNED, IP weight 10) and marks which address is the default for its network.

When to Use:

  • To recognise an address you have used before, or to audit which addresses belong to this account.

When NOT to Use:

  • To get an address to deposit to right now — binance_get_deposit_address returns the canonical one for a coin/network pair.

Returns: A markdown table of network, address, tag and isDefault, capped at 50 rows, or raw JSON with response_format="json".

Examples: params = {"coin": "USDT"} params = {"coin": "USDT", "network": "BSC"}

Error Handling: -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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable context: it names the exact API endpoint, mentions SIGNED and IP weight, notes the row cap of 50, and explains the -2015 error meaning. This goes beyond annotations and enriches agent decision-making.

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 tightly organized with headings for use cases, returns, examples, and errors. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's complexity (multiple networks, output formats, error codes), the description covers purpose, usage, alternatives, return format, examples, and error handling. The existence of an output schema further reduces the need for return-value detail. Nothing essential is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is reported as 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides examples with coin and network, and mentions response_format in the Returns section, but does not explicitly define each parameter's purpose. Still, the examples and context imply usage well enough for an agent to construct correct calls.

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 action ('List every deposit address') with clear resource and scope ('for one coin, across networks'). It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool binance_get_deposit_address by noting the canonical-address alternative. This makes the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Includes explicit 'When to Use' and 'When NOT to Use' sections. The 'When NOT to Use' names the alternative tool and the exact condition (getting an address to deposit right now), leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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