Skip to main content
Glama
trustxai

amazing-binance-mcp

by trustxai

binance_discover_traded_symbols

Read-onlyIdempotent

Found no account-pairs endpoint? Discover likely traded symbols by matching held assets and dust conversions against exchangeInfo to prune trade-history lookups.

Instructions

Work out which symbols this account plausibly traded — Binance will not tell you.

There is no endpoint that lists an account's traded pairs. Binance staff answered the question twice on their own developer forum, and both answers are workarounds: keep a local record from the user-data websocket stream, or infer the pairs from the account's assets (dev.binance.vision threads 4810 and 4329). This tool is the second answer, made cheap.

It unions the assets the account visibly holds or held — GET /api/v3/account (weight 20, zero balances omitted), POST /sapi/v3/asset/getUserAsset (weight 5, the funding/spot asset list) and GET /sapi/v1/asset/dribblet (weight 1, the last 100 dust conversions) — then crosses them with every exchangeInfo symbol (weight 20, fetched once per process and cached) whose base asset is a candidate and whose quote asset is either whitelisted (quote_assets) or itself a candidate. Total discovery cost: ~46 IP weight of the 6000/min budget.

Blind spot, stated plainly: the match is on the base asset, so an asset bought and then fully sold within spot — never deposited, withdrawn or dust-converted — leaves no trace to discover, and its pair is missed. Name it in extra_assets. Matching on the quote side too would not rescue it and costs a fortune: on the real exchangeInfo, USDT alone drags in 493 TRADING pairs (9,860 weight).

When to Use:

  • Before binance_get_all_my_trades, to see (and prune) the symbol list and its cost.

  • To answer "which pairs have I ever traded?" without spending 74,000 weight.

When NOT to Use:

  • When you already know the pairs — pass them to binance_get_all_my_trades directly.

  • To read balances — use binance_get_spot_account / binance_get_user_assets.

Returns: Markdown: the candidate assets with their source counts, the sorted symbol list, and the estimated cost of walking it (20 IP weight per symbol). JSON: the same, as {"assets": [...], "symbols": [...], "estimated_weight": N}.

Examples: params = {} params = {"extra_assets": ["SOL", "ADA"], "quote_assets": ["USDT", "BTC"]} params = {"include_break": true}

Error Handling: /sapi endpoints do not exist on the spot testnet (404). -2015 means the key lacks Reading or the IP is not allowlisted.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses far more than the annotations alone: it reveals that the tool is a heuristic workaround (no exact endpoint), enumerates the three underlying API calls and their weights, quantifies total cost, and states the base-asset matching blind spot. It also documents a testnet 404 and -2015 auth error. This is rich behavioral context beyond readOnly/idempotent hints.

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 long, but its length is mostly justified by the tool's complexity — it communicates a workaround, cost, blind spots, and error states. It is well-structured with clear headings and front-loaded purpose. A few details (forum thread IDs, repeated mention of endpoint weights) could be trimmed without loss, so it is excellent but not maximally lean.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Between the method explanation, cost estimate, blind spot, explicit when/when-not rules, return formats with JSON shape, concrete examples, and error handling, nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to invoke this tool is missing. The output schema and annotations cover the remaining mechanical details. This is a complete briefing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage for the top-level 'params' wrapper is 0%, so the description bears a real burden, and it does explain extra_assets and quote_assets in context and names include_break in an example. However, it leaves full semantics of include_break and response_format to the nested schema, and there is no systematic parameter-by-parameter mapping in the description. It compensates substantially but not completely.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a concrete result — 'work out which symbols this account plausibly traded' — and immediately states the core constraint: Binance provides no endpoint for traded pairs. It explicitly distinguishes itself from binance_get_all_my_trades by framing this as the discovery step before trade retrieval. The resource, verb, and relationship to siblings are all unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description contains dedicated 'When to Use' and 'When NOT to Use' sections. It names the precise alternative (binance_get_all_my_trades) and the condition for choosing this tool (unknown pairs, cost avoidance), and lists balance-reading siblings (binance_get_spot_account / binance_get_user_assets) as wrong for that job. This is explicit routing guidance, not just implication.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools