whalescope_get_stablecoin_supplyTotal + per-chain circulating supply USDT/USDC (DefiLlama), plus delta 24 jam & 7 hari -- 'dry powder' indicator, mint besar sering mendahului fase akumulasi institusional. Data on-chain, gak bisa dipalsu kayak candle/orderbook.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by stating the data source (DefiLlama), the on-chain nature and infallibility claim, and the time deltas returned. However, it does not describe the exact return format or any pagination/limits, which is more important given the absence of an output schema.
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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the main data returned and then adds contextual commentary. It is efficient and readable, though the informal Indonesian phrasing may reduce clarity for non-native speakers, but it is not verbose.
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 tool, the description covers the data returned (total and per-chain supply, deltas) and adds interpretive context (dry powder, institutional accumulation). However, since there is no output schema, it does not specify the structure of the response (e.g., field names, units, formatting), which would be helpful for agent parsing.
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 only parameter is 'symbol' with a clear enum (USDT/USDC) already documented in the schema. The description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter, but given its simplicity and self-documenting enum, the schema adequately covers it. The 0% schema coverage is compensated by the enum itself.
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 resource (USDT/USDC circulating supply) and the action (get supply data with deltas). It also adds the 'dry powder' indicator context, distinguishing it from the trading-focused sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly use a verb like 'retrieve' or 'fetch', though 'get' is implied from the name.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and does not mention any sibling tools or exclusions. There is an implicit use case (institutional accumulation analysis) but no explicit decision criteria.
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.