Binance MCP Server

未成交订单

trading_open_orders

Read-onlyIdempotent

List all unfilled open orders on Binance futures. Optionally filter by symbol to see pending orders for a specific market.

Instructions

返回：当前全部未成交订单。symbol 可选。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "trading_open_orders"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`symbol`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv3.0.1Aug 23, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

removedInput schema / properties / symbol / description
```
Removed value: -"交易对符号 如 BTCUSDT"
```

Addedv2.0.3Jun 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds the contextual scope (all current unfilled orders, optional symbol). There is no contradiction with annotations, but the description does not cover additional behavior such as pagination, market affects, or response structure.

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 two very short sentences with no fluff. Core operation and param optionality are front-loaded. Every word adds necessary content.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For simple a simple read-only tool with only one optional parameter, the core capability is communicated. However, with schema coverage at 0 and no output schema, the description leaves the agent with very little context about acceptable symbol values or how results are returned; enough for basic usage but not fully complete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema has only one parameter with no descriptions; the description merely says 'symbol 可选' and does not explain that the symbol filters the returned open orders or what format/values are expected. This is valuable only minimal information beyond the schema's optionality.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states it returns all current unfilled orders ('当前全部未成交订单') and notes the optional symbol parameter. This is specific and useful, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling order-related tools such as trading_order_history or trading_get_order.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The word '当前' hints that this is for current open orders rather than historical ones, but it does not tell the agent when to choose this tool over other trading order tools.

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

Deploy Server