Skip to main content
Glama

WhaleScope MCP

by io.github.osindo-dev

Aggregate Trades / CVD (Spot)

binance_get_spot_agg_trades
Read-only

Trade individual terbaru pasar SPOT + sisi buy/sell aggressor per trade. Versi Spot dari binance_get_agg_trades -- CVD spot = tekanan beli/jual RIIL (bukan leverage), bandingkan dengan CVD futures. Default ringkas (CVD + 15 trade terakhir di teks); detail: "full" untuk array trade mentah lengkap.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoJumlah trade terakhir yang diambil, maksimal 200.
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

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description goes beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint by explaining CVD meaning, aggressor side, compact mode vs full raw trade array, and the token-saving purpose of 'summary'. The inconsistency between '15 trade' in the description and '<=10' in the schema, plus the pointed 'Binance USDS-M Futures' text on a spot tool, keeps this from a 5.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Very compact, front-loaded, every sentence adds value. Slightly penalized because the 15/10 mismatch could have been avoided; overall structure is good.

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

Completeness3/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return shape. It gives summary vs full behavior, but does not define the exact summary fields or aggregate trade array structure, and the referenced docs only appear in the schema. For a moderately complex tool, that leaves gaps.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage for all 3 parameters, so the schema already carries most of the burden. The description adds spot-vs-fries framing but does not resolve the contradiction where schema says 'Binance Futures' for a spot tool, so parameter selection is less certain than it could be.

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?

Description clearly states what the tool does: fetch recent SPOT trades with buy/sell aggressor, and explicitly identifies itself as the Spot version of binance_get_agg_trades. This distinguishes it from the many futures-oriented sibling tools.

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?

The description tells the agent to compare spot CVD with futures CVD and names the futures equivalent. While it does not give explicit exclusions, the spot-vs-futures guidance makes the intended context clear.

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