binance_get_open_interestOpen Interest (total kontrak terbuka) TERKINI, LANGSUNG dari Binance native. OI naik + harga naik = tren didukung entry baru. OI turun + harga naik = short covering. OI turun tajam = kemungkinan capitulation.
| 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 (readOnlyHint=true) already establish that the tool is a safe read operation. The description adds interpretative value about OI movements but does not disclose additional behavioral specifics such as response format, rate limits, or error handling. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate—it adds some context but not deep behavioral details.
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 and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the tool's core function. The subsequent interpretative sentences are valuable and without fluff. Every sentence earns its place, achieving high conciseness and structure.
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 tool with one parameter, read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains what OI is, how to interpret it, and implicitly what the return value represents. It could explicitly mention the response type or error cases, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.
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?
The input schema already fully describes the 'symbol' parameter (100% coverage) with pattern and example. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.
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 that the tool returns current open interest ('Open Interest TERKINI, LANGSUNG dari Binance native'). It distinguishes itself from the historical variant implicitly by emphasizing 'current', but does not explicitly name the alternative tool. The interpretative guidance further clarifies the tool's purpose in analyzing market sentiment.
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 provides concrete usage context by explaining how to interpret OI changes relative to price (e.g., 'OI naik + harga naik = tren didukung entry baru'). This implies when to use the tool for trend confirmation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it with alternatives like the history tool, so it lacks exclusions.
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.