Skip to main content
Glama
questflowai

Aster Finance MCP Server

by questflowai

transferAsset

Move cryptocurrency funds between futures and spot trading accounts on the Aster exchange to manage trading positions and capital allocation.

Instructions

Transfer between futures and spot.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
amountYes
assetYes
clientTranIdYes
kindTypeYes

Implementation Reference

  • Handler implementation for the 'transferAsset' tool. It invokes the shared makeRequest function with POST method to '/fapi/v1/asset/wallet/transfer' endpoint, passing arguments and requiring signing.
    case 'transferAsset':
        return makeRequest('POST', '/fapi/v1/asset/wallet/transfer', args, true);
  • Input schema definition for the transferAsset tool, specifying required parameters: asset (string), amount (number), clientTranId (string), kindType (enum: 'FUTURE_SPOT' or 'SPOT_FUTURE').
    inputSchema: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: {
        asset: { type: 'string' },
        amount: { type: 'number' },
        clientTranId: { type: 'string' },
        kindType: { type: 'string', enum: ['FUTURE_SPOT', 'SPOT_FUTURE'] },
      },
      required: ['asset', 'amount', 'clientTranId', 'kindType'],
    },
  • src/index.ts:282-295 (registration)
    Registration of the transferAsset tool in the tools list returned by the ListToolsRequestSchema handler.
    {
      name: 'transferAsset',
      description: 'Transfer between futures and spot.',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          asset: { type: 'string' },
          amount: { type: 'number' },
          clientTranId: { type: 'string' },
          kindType: { type: 'string', enum: ['FUTURE_SPOT', 'SPOT_FUTURE'] },
        },
        required: ['asset', 'amount', 'clientTranId', 'kindType'],
      },
    },
  • Shared helper function 'makeRequest' that handles API requests to AsterDEX (fapi endpoints), including signing with API key/secret for authenticated endpoints like transferAsset.
    const makeRequest = async (method: 'GET' | 'POST' | 'DELETE', path: string, params: any, isSigned = false) => {
      try {
        let config: any = {
          method,
          url: path,
        };
    
        if (isSigned) {
          if (!API_KEY || !API_SECRET) {
            throw new McpError(ErrorCode.InvalidRequest, 'API_KEY and API_SECRET must be configured.');
          }
          params.timestamp = Date.now();
          const queryString = new URLSearchParams(params).toString();
          const signature = crypto.createHmac('sha256', API_SECRET).update(queryString).digest('hex');
          params.signature = signature;
          
          config.headers = { 'X-MBX-APIKEY': API_KEY };
        }
        
        if (method === 'GET' || method === 'DELETE') {
          config.params = params;
        } else { // POST
          config.data = new URLSearchParams(params).toString();
          config.headers = { ...config.headers, 'Content-Type': 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded' };
        }
    
        const response = await this.axiosInstance.request(config);
        return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(response.data, null, 2) }] };
      } catch (error) {
        if (axios.isAxiosError(error)) {
          throw new McpError(
            ErrorCode.InternalError,
            `Aster API error: ${error.response?.data?.msg || error.message}`
          );
        }
        throw error;
      }
    };
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Transfer between futures and spot' implies a mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions required, rate limits, transaction finality, error conditions, or what happens to the transferred assets. For a financial transfer tool with 4 required parameters, this represents a critical lack of behavioral information.

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 extremely concise at just 4 words, which is appropriate for a simple concept. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness. The single sentence is front-loaded with the core action but lacks necessary elaboration for a financial transfer operation.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a financial transfer tool with 4 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what the tool returns, error conditions, side effects, or the semantics of the transfer operation. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without significant external knowledge.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'futures and spot' which relates to the kindType enum, but provides no explanation of what 'FUTURE_SPOT' versus 'SPOT_FUTURE' means, no context for the amount parameter, no explanation of what asset strings represent, or what clientTranId is used for. The description adds minimal value beyond what the bare schema provides.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Transfer between futures and spot' states the action (transfer) and resources (futures, spot), but is vague about scope and lacks specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like modifyPositionMargin or setMarginType that might also involve asset movements. The purpose is understandable but insufficiently detailed for precise tool selection.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. Given the sibling tools include various order and position management functions, the agent receives no help in distinguishing this transfer operation from other asset movement operations.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/questflowai/aster-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server