Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bybit-mcp

bybit-mcp

by JohnnyWic
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

create_sub_api_key

Create an API key for a sub-account, setting read-only status and permissions for contract or spot trading.

Instructions

Create API key for a sub UID.

Args: sub_uid: Sub UID. read_only: 0: Read and Write, 1: Read only. permissions: Permission object, e.g., {"ContractTrade": ["Order","Position"], "Spot": ["SpotTrade"]}.

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": {
      "sub_uid": "<sub_uid>",
      "read_only": "<read_only>",
      "permissions": "<permissions>"
    },
    "name": "create_sub_api_key"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sub_uidYes
read_onlyYes
permissionsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It does not disclose error handling, idempotency, rate limits, or what happens if a key already exists. The output is not described.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is extremely concise and well-structured with an Args section. Every sentence is necessary and adds value, with no redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers parameter semantics but lacks usage context and behavioral details. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning: explains read_only values (0=Read/Write, 1=Read only) and provides an example for permissions. This goes beyond the schema's type-only info.

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 clearly states the action ('Create API key') and the resource ('for a sub UID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like modify_sub_api_key and delete_sub_api_key.

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, prerequisites, or when to consider alternatives. For example, it does not mention whether the sub_uid must be created first or how to retrieve an existing key.

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