binance_get_multi_timeframe_biasBias arah (Bullish/Bearish/Sideways) di 5 timeframe (1m, 5m, 15m, 1h, 1d) sekaligus, LANGSUNG dari Binance native -- ganti beberapa panggilan binance_get_klines manual. Cocok untuk 'apa bias BTCUSDT di semua timeframe'.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting the data comes directly from Binance native and covers five timeframes, but it does not disclose how bias is calculated or what the exact response structure looks like.
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, front-loaded with the core outcome, and every sentence adds value. The use case and alternative are stated efficiently without unnecessary filler.
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, the description is mostly complete: it names the output values (Bullish/Bearish/Sideways), the timeframes, the data source, and a typical query. It lacks an explicit output schema or return-format description, but the absence is partially mitigated by the clear statement of what the tool provides.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'symbol' parameter is well-documented in the schema with format, example, and listing requirements. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 the tool provides directional bias (Bullish/Bearish/Sideways) across 5 specific timeframes (1m, 5m, 15m, 1h, 1d) in one call. It also distinguishes itself from binance_get_klines by explicitly saying it replaces multiple manual kline calls.
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 gives an explicit use case ('Cocok untuk 'apa bias BTCUSDT di semua timeframe'') and names the alternative it replaces (binance_get_klines). It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the context is clear.
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.