binance_get_spot_avg_priceHarga rata-rata bergerak (moving average) SPOT terkini, dihitung Binance dari trade beberapa menit terakhir ('mins', biasanya 5 menit). Lebih stabil dari last-trade sesaat (binance_get_spot_price).
| 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?
With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already present, the description adds useful behavioral context: the price is an aggregate over a short trailing window, usually around 5 minutes, rather than a single instantaneous trade. It does not describe output structure or edge cases, but the annotations cover the read-only safety profile.
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 one concise sentence with the core definition front-loaded and a valuable clarifying contrast with the sibling tool. There is no wasted text or redundant repetition of the title.
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-symbol, read-only price tool, the description is mostly sufficient: it explains how the price is derived, why it is stable, and which sibling tool differs. However, it lacks output-format details, and the incorrect futures-symbol guidance in the schema makes the overall tool context incomplete and potentially misleading.
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 symbol parameter is fully documented in the schema, but the schema description is copy-pasted from a futures tool: it says the symbol must be a perpetual pair registered in Binance USDS-M Futures, which conflicts with this SPOT tool. The tool description does not correct this and adds no real symbol-level guidance; the parenthetical 'mins' is also not an actual input parameter.
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 identifies the tool as a current SPOT moving-average price, computed by Binance from trades over the last few minutes. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from binance_get_spot_price, which is the instantaneous last-trade price, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 a clear usage signal: prefer this when a more stable recent SPOT price is needed than the last trade. It names binance_get_spot_price as the alternative, but it does not state explicit exclusions or when other price-related tools would be more appropriate.
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.