Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bybit-mcp

bybit-mcp

by JohnnyWic
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

accept_rfq_non_lp_quote

Accept a non-LP quote for a pending RFQ by providing the RFQ ID.

Instructions

Accept a non-LP quote for an RFQ.

Args: rfq_id: RFQ ID.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "rfq_id": "<rfq_id>"
    },
    "name": "accept_rfq_non_lp_quote"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rfq_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations and minimal description, the tool's behavioral traits are not disclosed. Important context like side effects, prerequisites, or effects on other quotes is missing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise (one line plus args), but the structure is minimal and lacks a proper explanation. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, but could be more informative without adding length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's likely significance in an RFQ workflow, the description fails to explain preconditions, effects, or postconditions. No output schema or further context is provided, leaving the agent underinformed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description merely repeats the parameter name and adds a trivial label 'RFQ ID'. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds barely any meaning beyond what is already known from the parameter name.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action 'Accept' and the object 'non-LP quote for an RFQ'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'cancel_rfq_quote' or 'execute_rfq_quote', though the term 'non-LP' is not explained.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No usage guidance is provided. The description lacks information on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'execute_rfq_quote' or 'cancel_rfq_quote'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools