binance_check_spot_listingCek apakah sebuah pair BENAR-BENAR listed di Binance Spot + status trading (TRADING/BREAK/HALT), LANGSUNG dari exchangeInfo. Pakai SEBELUM tool Spot lain untuk pair yang belum pasti listing-nya, daripada menebak dari error 'Invalid symbol'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Simbol pair Binance Futures, contoh: BTCUSDT, ETHUSDT. Harus pair perpetual yang terdaftar di Binance USDS-M Futures. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it verifies against exchangeInfo, returns status values, and emphasizes 'BENAR-BENAR listed' to signal authoritative verification. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 two focused sentences, with the core action and status values front-loaded. Every part adds value: the source endpoint, the statuses, and the usage guidance. No filler or repetition.
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?
For a single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, this is nearly complete: it explains what is checked, where data comes from, what statuses are relevant, and when to use it. It stops short of describing the exact return shape or what happens for an unlisted symbol, but that is a minor gap.
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?
Schema coverage is nominally 100%, but the schema's symbol description is inconsistent with the tool purpose: it describes 'Binance Futures' and 'perpetual pair' while the tool is about Spot listing. The tool description does not clarify the correct symbol format or correct this mismatch, undermining parameter semantics.
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 uses a specific verb+resource+scope: it checks whether a pair is truly listed on Binance Spot and returns its trading status (TRADING/BREAK/HALT), directly from exchangeInfo. It also distinguishes itself from the many spot-data sibling tools by framing itself as a pre-flight listing verification, not a market-data retrieval.
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 explicitly says to use this tool before other Spot tools when listing is uncertain, and to avoid guessing from 'Invalid symbol' errors. This gives clear when-to-use context and an alternative, though it does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools map to a distinct Binance metric or analytic concept, and descriptions explicitly contrast near-neighbors (spot vs futures, snapshot vs delta, 'BEDA dari...' notes). A few pairs could still be confused—`binance_get_basis` vs `binance_get_basis_history` and `binance_get_agg_trades` vs `binance_get_recent_trades`—but their purpose differences are explained well enough for careful agents.
The dominant pattern is `binance_<verb>_<object>` in snake_case, with consistent complementary pairs like `get_*` and `get_*_history`. There are minor style breaks: `orderbook` vs `order_book`, the `whalescope_*` prefix, and `whalescope_full_pipeline` which lacks a verb, but the overall structure is readable and predictable.
56 tools cross the explicit '50+ tools' extreme threshold. Although the Binance Futures domain is broad, many tools are single-endpoint or single-metric wrappers—multiple klines variants, order book variants, and ticker variants—that could be consolidated into parameterized composite tools. The surface is far too large for most agents to navigate efficiently.
The public market-data and analytics surface is remarkably complete: klines, funding, open interest, long/short ratios, top-trader data, liquidations, basis, order book behavior, regime detection, and full pipeline scoring are all covered. The main gaps are documented limitations such as unavailable liquidation-by-price data and non-public account/execution tooling, but agents can work around them without dead ends.