binance_get_book_tickerBest bid/ask price + quantity saja (GET /fapi/v1/ticker/bookTicker). Sangat ringan dibanding full depth. Kalau symbol kosong, return semua pair (hati-hati payload besar).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | No | 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?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it reveals that omitting symbol returns all pairs and warns about potentially large payloads. It also notes the endpoint. This is useful context that annotations do not provide, so a score of 4 reflects the added value.
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 sentences and highly compact, front-loading what the tool returns and then providing the endpoint and caveat. Every sentence carries value, though the mix of Indonesian and English may slightly reduce clarity for some agents. Still, it is appropriately concise and well-ordered.
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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the main usage, the empty-symbol behavior, and a payload caution. It doesn't describe the return structure, but that's acceptable given the absence of an output schema. It is complete enough for correct invocation, with the only minor gap being lack of explicit response format.
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 100% and the schema describes the symbol parameter thoroughly. The description adds critical semantic detail: specifying that an empty symbol returns all pairs, which is not stated in the schema. This goes beyond the schema, improving parameter understanding.
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 it returns the best bid/ask price and quantity, specifies the exact endpoint (GET /fapi/v1/ticker/bookTicker), and distinguishes itself as 'very light compared to full depth', which differentiates it from depth-related siblings like binance_get_order_book_depth. It also notes the behavior when symbol is empty, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 contrasts with 'full depth' (implying an alternative depth tool) and warns about the large payload when symbol is empty, guiding when to use it vs. alternatives. It lacks a direct 'use when you need light data' statement or explicit exclusions, but the context and caution provide clear usage guidance.
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.