binance_get_spot_book_tickerBest bid/ask price + quantity real-time SPOT -- lebih ringan dari binance_get_spot_order_book kalau cuma butuh spread sesaat. Cross-check spread spot vs futures (binance_get_order_book_depth).
| 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, lowering the bar. The description adds behavioral context by stating it's real-time and lighter than order book, and implies it only returns the top bid/ask, not a full depth. However, it doesn't detail output structure or rate limits, but given annotations and simplicity, this is sufficient.
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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. It efficiently conveys purpose and alternatives without unnecessary detail.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, annotations present), the description covers purpose, usage, and the returned data (price + quantity). However, the mismatch between the tool's 'SPOT' context and the schema's 'Futures' symbol description creates a critical gap that undermines completeness, leaving the agent uncertain about valid symbol formats.
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 has 100% coverage for the single 'symbol' parameter, but its description is contradictory: it says 'Simbol pair Binance Futures' and 'Harus pair perpetual yang terdaftar di Binance USDS-M Futures' (must be a perpetual pair on USDS-M Futures), while the tool name and description clearly indicate SPOT. The tool description does not correct this, so the parameter meaning is misleading, leaving an agent unsure whether to pass spot or futures symbols.
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 the tool returns the best bid/ask price and quantity for SPOT in real-time. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('best bid/ask'), and distinguishes itself from the heavier binance_get_spot_order_book by emphasizing it is lighter, making its 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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'lebih ringan dari binance_get_spot_order_book kalau cuma butuh spread sesaat' (lighter than the spot order book if you just need a momentary spread). It also names an alternative for cross-checking spot vs futures (binance_get_order_book_depth), providing clear guidance relative to sibling tools.
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.