Retrieve futures leverage tiers for specific trading pairs, enabling users to manage risk and optimize trading strategies on supported exchanges like Binance and Bybit.
Get futures leverage tiers for trading pairs
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| exchange | Yes | Exchange ID (e.g., binance, bybit) | |
| marketType | No | Market type (default: future) | future |
| symbol | No | Trading pair symbol (optional, e.g., BTC/USDT) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, response format, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves in practice.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying the essential action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns structured financial data. It doesn't explain what leverage tiers entail (e.g., margin requirements, tier levels) or the format of the response, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all parameters (exchange, marketType, symbol). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying these parameters are used to fetch leverage tiers, which the schema already covers. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('futures leverage tiers for trading pairs'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set-leverage' or 'get-exchange-info', which would require more specific language about what distinguishes this retrieval operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., for risk management or trading setup), or comparisons to siblings like 'get-exchange-info' or 'set-leverage', leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.