Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bybit-mcp

bybit-mcp

by JohnnyWic
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

confirm_fiat_quote

Confirm a fiat conversion quote using the quote transaction ID and sub user ID to finalize the exchange.

Instructions

Confirm a fiat conversion quote.

Args: quote_tx_id: Quote transaction ID. sub_user_id: Sub user 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": {
      "quote_tx_id": "<quote_tx_id>",
      "sub_user_id": "<sub_user_id>"
    },
    "name": "confirm_fiat_quote"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
quote_tx_idYes
sub_user_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Confirm a fiat conversion quote' without explaining what confirmation entails (e.g., executing the conversion, state changes, security implications). This is a significant gap.

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 very concise, with a one-line purpose and two parameter descriptions. However, it could be improved by using structured formatting like bullet points or markdown for better readability.

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?

The description omits key contextual details such as return value, side effects, and required prior state (e.g., a valid quote from 'request_fiat_quote'). Given the simple two-parameter input, this incompleteness is notable.

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 parameter descriptions are minimal: 'Quote transaction ID' and 'Sub user ID'. While they add basic meaning beyond the schema (which has 0% coverage), they lack details on format, constraints, or source of these IDs. More context is needed for correct invocation.

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 verb 'Confirm' and the resource 'a fiat conversion quote', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is distinguishable from siblings like 'request_fiat_quote' and 'confirm_convert_quote'.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a prior quote from 'request_fiat_quote'. This lack of context leaves the agent without decision-making support.

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