A spot meter for film is, in my view, essential. I grew up with film and the zone system and for that I have used one for over 30 years now.
I have a Sekonic L758D which has a useful feature in that you can take readings from your shadows, mid tones and highlights and it will average them out. It works extremely well with film once you've worked out the effective film speed and development times.
For digital - I can't see the necessity. I have Hasselblad and Sony digital cameras and their centre weighted metering systems seem to me to work extremely well. Comparing their recommended exposures against the spot meter usually results in much less than 1/3rd of a stop difference - and often agree completely. The latitude of modern CMOS sensors are, to a film user, extraordinary. Even if the histograms are taken from an embedded jpeg this doesn't really seem to matter much. The actual raw file has much more latitude than the histogram suggests. I can see from either the live histogram on the Sonys or the after-the-event histogram on the Hasselblads where things are going to blow out and where they are easily recoverable.
If in doubt - do a 3 stop bracket. It doesn't cost anything. Good spot meters are expensive and as far as I can see just one more thing to lose or get in the way when using digital cameras. But for film? Essential.
Some of the earlier Leica monochrome cameras indeed had RAW histograms, which makes a lot of sense since a monochrome sensor doesn't need white balance nor colour space conversions, the two main differences between JPEG and RAW histograms. If that is the case of your camera, believe me you don't need nor want to fiddle with any spotmeter to achieve accurate exposure. I would say the opposite journey (replace metering by realtime histogram or highlight clipping warning) makes a lot more sense.
https://www.overfitting.net/2020/04/el-raw-como-fotometro-de-precision.html
Check if you have RAW histograms and learn to use them.
Regards