Binance MCP Server

设置杠杆

trading_set_leverage

Destructive

Adjust leverage for a Binance futures symbol from 1x to 125x to control margin and risk. Specify the trading pair and desired multiplier to update your position settings.

Instructions

设置交易对杠杆倍数（1~125，视交易对而定）。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "symbol": "<symbol>",
      "leverage": "<leverage>"
    },
    "name": "trading_set_leverage"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`symbol`	Yes
`leverage`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`symbol`	Yes
`leverage`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 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 / leverage / description
```
Removed value: -"杠杆倍数"
```
removedInput schema / properties / symbol / description
```
Removed value: -"交易对符号 如 BTCUSDT"
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "leverage": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "symbol": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "symbol",
+    "leverage"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Addedv2.0.3Jun 3, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already flag the tool as destructive and non-read-only, lowering the bar for behavioral disclosure. The description adds the useful caveat that the valid leverage range is 1-125 but varies by trading pair. However, it does not mention the effect on existing positions or account-level consequences beyond what annotations state.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler, front-loading the core purpose. It is appropriately brief but arguably under-specified given the complexities of a destructive trading operation.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a state-changing tool with a destructive hint, the description is materially incomplete. It lacks guidance on when to use the tool, how to coordinate with margin-type settings, and what the operational impact will be. The output schema's existence covers the return value, but not the missing behavioral and usage context.

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?

With 0% schema-description coverage, the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It mentions the leverage range but that is already present in the schema bounds, and it offers no explanation of the symbol parameter or its expected values.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: setting the leverage multiplier for a trading pair. The action is clear and distinct from the sibling tools such as trading_set_margin_type and trading_position_margin, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself by naming an alternative.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus related alternatives like trading_set_margin_type or trading_position_margin. It states the action but leaves all selection context and preconditions to the agent to infer.

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

Deploy Server