Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bybit-mcp

bybit-mcp

by JohnnyWic
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

cancel_rfq

Cancel a pending RFQ by providing its RFQ ID or link ID to terminate the quote request.

Instructions

Cancel an RFQ.

Args: rfq_id: RFQ ID (either rfq_id or rfq_link_id required). rfq_link_id: RFQ link ID.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "cancel_rfq"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rfq_idNo
rfq_link_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'cancel' without any behavioral details (e.g., effects on associated quotes, reversibility, permissions, or side effects). The burden is on the description, which is insufficient.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is short and to the point, with a clear header and parameter list. It avoids unnecessary words, but the structure is slightly informal (e.g., 'Args:' in description).

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It lacks information on return values, error handling, idempotency, or what happens on success. For a cancellation action, more context would be helpful.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The description adds meaning beyond the schema by noting that 'either rfq_id or rfq_link_id required' and specifying 'RFQ ID' and 'RFQ link ID.' This clarifies the requirement, but no additional parameter details are given.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description explicitly states 'Cancel an RFQ,' providing a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'cancel_all_rfqs' and 'cancel_rfq_quote' by focusing on a single RFQ.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'cancel_all_rfqs' or 'cancel_rfq_quote'). The description lacks context for decision-making.

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