binance_get_price_tickerHarga terakhir saja (GET /fapi/v2/ticker/price). Ringan. Symbol opsional (kalau kosong return banyak pair).
| 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 cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context: the symbol is optional and omitting it returns many pairs. It also notes the endpoint and lightweight nature, though it does not describe the response fields or size.
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 very short and front-loaded: it states the resource, the lightweight intent, and the optional parameter behavior in three tight clauses. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.
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 price endpoint, the description covers the endpoint, the optional symbol behavior, and the lightweight nature. An output schema is absent, so describing the exact response fields would have been a small improvement, but the tool name and context are sufficient for correct use.
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 schema already has full description coverage for the symbol parameter, but the tool description adds meaning by explicitly stating the symbol is optional and that an empty value returns multiple pairs. This is useful semantic guidance beyond the raw schema.
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 this tool returns only the latest price ('Harga terakhir saja') for Binance futures, with the exact endpoint GET /fapi/v2/ticker/price. It is clear enough to avoid confusion with richer tickers like the 24hr ticker, though it does not explicitly compare itself to a sibling tool.
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 implies the tool is for lightweight latest-price lookups, especially by saying 'Ringan' and noting that an empty symbol returns many pairs. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives such as binance_get_24hr_ticker or binance_get_spot_price.
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.