binance_get_composite_index_infoKomposisi base asset + bobot sebuah COMPOSITE INDEX symbol (mis. DEFIUSDT). PENTING: cuma relevan untuk symbol composite index -- pair biasa (BTCUSDT, dst) balik kosong/error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | No | Symbol composite index tertentu -- opsional, kosongkan untuk semua composite index. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
description adds critical behavioral context: it returns empty/error for non-index symbols, clarifying expected failure modes. Annotations include readOnlyHint=true (safe read) and openWorldHint (may return unknown data), which aligns; the description enriches this by specifying scope. No contradiction, and it improves transparency.
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 concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core value, and the warning section is brief but essential. 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional param, no output schema, annotations present), the description fully covers purpose, usage scope, and failure behavior. The lack of return details is acceptable because no output schema exists, but the description's warning is sufficient given the tool's narrow focus.
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 covers the symbol parameter fully (pattern, optional, description). The description reinforces the parameter relevance (only for composite index) but does not add new syntax or format details. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3, but the description's clarification that it's optional and for all indices when omitted adds a small increment.
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 retrieves composite index information (base assets and weights) for a specific symbol, and notably distinguishes it from regular pairs (BTCUSDT) by warning they return empty/error. This is a specific verb (get/info) plus resource, effectively differentiating it from sibling tools like get_index_constituents.
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?
It explicitly states when to use it (only for composite index symbols) and when not (regular pairs), which is strong guidance. However, it does not mention alternatives like get_index_constituents or when to use those instead, so it lacks full alternative differentiation.
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.