amazing-binance-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

binance_get_deposit_history

Read-onlyIdempotent

List crypto deposits into Binance account for a date range up to 90 days, filterable by coin, status, or transaction ID.

Instructions

List crypto deposits into the account for one window (up to 90 days).

Calls GET /sapi/v1/capital/deposit/hisrec (SIGNED, IP weight 1). One call answers a single window; Binance caps that window at "less than 90 days" and defaults to the last 90 days when no times are given. The cap is enforced here, before the request, so an over-wide window fails with a readable message instead of -1127.

When to Use:

"Did my USDT deposit land?" — a recent, bounded lookup.
Reconciling one month's deposits, or chasing one tx_id.

When NOT to Use:

For the full history since the account opened — use binance_get_all_deposits, which walks these windows for you and returns a resume cursor.
For withdrawals — use binance_get_withdraw_history.
For fiat (card/bank) deposits — those are not here; use binance_get_fiat_orders (fiat.py).

Returns: A markdown table (insertTime, completeTime, coin, amount, network, status, walletType, txId) plus per-coin totals, capped at 50 displayed rows; or the raw Binance array with response_format="json".

Pagination: limit is 1-1000 (Binance default 1000) and offset pages within the window. A full page means there is more: re-call with offset += limit.

Windows: start_time/end_time together must span under 90 days. start_time alone must be under 90 days ago (Binance defaults endTime to now). end_time alone gets a startTime of end_time - 89 days so the window actually brackets it.

Examples: params = {"coin": "USDT", "status": "success"} params = {"start_time": "2026-08-01", "end_time": "2026-09-01"} params = {"tx_id": "0xabc...", "response_format": "json"}

Error Handling: An over-wide window is rejected locally. -2015 means the key lacks Reading permission or this IP is not allowlisted. /sapi does not exist on the spot testnet — a 404 there is expected.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 23, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: it is SIGNED with IP weight 1, the 90-day window cap is enforced locally with a readable error, over-wide windows are rejected before the request, and -2015 is explained. It also documents pagination, response formats, and the expected 404 on spot testnet.

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 tightly organized with clear headings: endpoint, when to use, returns, pagination, windows, examples, and error handling. Every section adds operational knowledge an agent needs, and the most important constraint (one 90-day window) is front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only API wrapper with rich annotations, an output schema, and a detailed input schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: endpoint, window constraints, pagination, error codes, return shape, and example parameter sets. There are no major gaps.

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?

Even though the context signal reports low schema coverage, the description thoroughly explains the meaning and behavior of the window parameters, including start_time/end_time edge cases, offset paging, limit bounds, and response_format. The nested schema also has per-field descriptions, but the tool description goes beyond it with concrete examples and window-bracketing semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List crypto deposits into the account for one window (up to 90 days).' It names the exact endpoint and differentiates itself from binance_get_all_deposits, binance_get_withdraw_history, and binance_get_fiat_orders, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling tools without inspecting schemas.

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 that name alternatives and the conditions that select them, such as full-history reconciliation via binance_get_all_deposits and fiat deposits via binance_get_fiat_orders. This leaves no ambiguity about when the tool should be chosen.

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

Deploy Server