Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bybit-mcp

bybit-mcp

by JohnnyWic
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

create_rfq_quote

Create a quote for a Request for Quote (RFQ) on Bybit. Submit an RFQ ID and an optional quote link ID to generate a quote.

Instructions

Create a quote for an RFQ.

Args: rfq_id: RFQ ID to quote against. quote_link_id: Unique quote link ID (optional).

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": "create_rfq_quote"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rfq_idYes
quote_link_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Create a quote' with no disclosure of behavioral traits like side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the quote is temporary or persistent. This is insufficient for a creation tool.

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 short and to the point, using two sentences. However, the 'Args:' formatting is slightly technical. Overall minimal waste.

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, no annotations, and only 2 parameters, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or prerequisites. The tool's behavior around quote creation (e.g., idempotency, validation) is missing.

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 some meaning beyond the schema: 'rfq_id' is explained as 'RFQ ID to quote against' and 'quote_link_id' as 'Unique quote link ID (optional)'. However, no further details like format or constraints are given. Schema coverage was 0%, so the description partially compensates.

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 states 'Create a quote for an RFQ.' which clearly indicates the action (create) and resource (quote for an RFQ). It is specific and distinct from siblings like 'execute_rfq_quote' or 'accept_rfq_non_lp_quote', though it does not highlight that distinction.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'execute_rfq_quote' or 'accept_rfq_non_lp_quote'. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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