mark_priceOKX crypto exchange mark price for derivatives: pass instType (e.g. 'SWAP') and optionally uly or instId. Returns the mark price used for unrealised P&L and liquidation calculations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uly | No | ||
| instId | No | ||
| instType | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that the returned mark price is used for unrealised P&L and liquidation calculations, giving the agent insight into the significance of the returned value beyond the basic 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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then the return's significance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.
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?
The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered externally. Annotations cover safety. However, the description is not fully complete because it omits definitions for 'uly' and 'instId', which are essential for correct invocation. It also doesn't mention any constraints or edge cases (e.g., what if both are provided).
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden for parameter semantics. It states that instType is required and uly/instId are optional, but it does not explain what 'uly' or 'instId' mean. The schema examples provide some hints, but the description itself fails to define these terms, leaving a significant gap.
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 returning the OKX mark price for derivatives, with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('OKX crypto exchange mark price for derivatives'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ticker' by noting its use for unrealised P&L and liquidation calculations.
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?
It gives direct invocation guidance ('pass instType (e.g. 'SWAP') and optionally uly or instId'), making clear which parameters are required and optional. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for use.
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.