Skip to main content
Glama

WhaleScope MCP

by io.github.osindo-dev

RPI Order Book Depth

binance_get_rpi_depth
Read-only

Order book yang TERMASUK Retail Price Improvement (RPI) orders (GET /fapi/v1/rpiDepth). Beda dari binance_get_order_book_depth yang mengecualikan RPI. Default summary (top 10 + wall).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoJumlah level per sisi (di-clamp ke 5/10/20/50/100/500/1000; default 100)
detailNo'summary' (default): metrik turunan + <=10 poin terbaru saja, HEMAT TOKEN. 'full': array/level mentah lengkap seperti sebelumnya. Lihat docs/tool_response_reference.md.summary
symbolYesSimbol pair Binance Futures, contoh: BTCUSDT, ETHUSDT. Harus pair perpetual yang terdaftar di Binance USDS-M Futures.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the base safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context: the order book includes RPI orders, the sibling excludes them, and the default output is a summary (top 10 + wall). No contradiction with annotations is present.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with the key RPI distinction in the first sentence. Every phrase earns its place: the endpoint, the sibling contrast, and the default output mode. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, but the description plus the detail parameter explain the default summary behavior, the full raw mode, and point to the docs reference. Combined with 100% schema coverage and safe read-only annotations, this is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though the exact summary fields are not fully described.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents symbol, limit, and detail thoroughly. The description's mention of 'default summary (top 10 + wall)' aligns with the detail parameter but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns an order book that INCLUDES RPI orders and explicitly contrasts it with binance_get_order_book_depth, which excludes RPI. This gives a specific verb, resource, and enough distinction to separate it from the main sibling tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It names the key alternative (binance_get_order_book_depth) and states the exact difference between them, which effectively tells the agent when to prefer this tool. However, it stops short of an explicit 'use this when / use that when' rule or any exclusion scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All WhaleScope MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources