kvant-binance-mcp

futures_change_leverage

Adjust the leverage on a Binance futures pair. Provide the trading symbol and a leverage value between 1 and 125 to control risk.

Instructions

Change futures leverage (requires API key)

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": "futures_change_leverage"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`symbol`	Yes	Trading pair
`leverage`	Yes	Leverage value (1-125)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions an API key requirement, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose any side effects (e.g., does it cancel existing orders? affect open positions?) or rate limits. For a mutation tool, more transparency is needed.

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 extremely concise with two key pieces of information: the action and the authentication requirement. No superfluous words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about return behavior, error cases, or what happens after a successful change. A slightly more complete description would improve usability.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters: 'Trading pair' and 'Leverage value (1-125)'. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so parameter semantics are adequate but not enhanced.

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 the action and resource: 'Change futures leverage'. It also mentions an authentication requirement ('requires API key'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'futures_change_margin_type' which also modifies futures settings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites or conditions (e.g., if a position already exists, if leverage can be changed at any time) are provided. The 'requires API key' note is the only contextual hint.

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