SiteCheck Web Intel

BingX perpetual swap market ticker: last price, 24h change

search_bingx_markets

Read-only

BingX perpetual swap market ticker (public open API, no key): last price, 24h change, high, low, open, base and quote volume and the time of the last candle close for one symbol such as BTC-USDT. Read-only market data; no trading. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "search_bingx_markets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`symbol`	No	Swap symbol like BTC-USDT (letters, digits and dash, up to 20 characters)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	No
`symbol`	No
`askPrice`	No
`bidPrice`	No
`lowPrice`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`highPrice`	No
`lastPrice`	No
`openPrice`	No
`volumeBase`	No
`volumeQuote`	No
`candleCloseTime`	No
`changePercent24h`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world, but the description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: public open API with no key required, a $0.002 USDC charge per successful call via x402 (Base, Solana, Arc), and no charge on failure. Cost and auth behavior are exactly the sort of detail annotations cannot express. Minor gap: no rate-limit or symbol-not-found behavior.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the read-only caveat and pricing. Efficient, though the field list could be trimmed given an output schema exists.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description still covers auth, cost model, scope, and read-only nature. What remains unsaid (pagination-free single-symbol limitations, error behavior) is minor for a one-parameter ticker tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents symbol format and length; baseline 3 applies. The description only restates the single-symbol constraint and gives an example ticker, adding little beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb/resource pair ('BingX perpetual swap market ticker') and enumerates exactly what is returned: last price, 24h change, high, low, open, base/quote volume, and last candle close time for one symbol. This is unmistakable against siblings, which are almost all news/article or security lookup tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Implies usage via 'for one symbol such as BTC-USDT' and explicitly excludes trading ('Read-only market data; no trading'), which is useful scoping. However it names no alternative and gives no guidance on when to prefer this over other market-data sources or what to do for multiple symbols.

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

All SiteCheck Web Intel tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?