Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bybit-mcp

bybit-mcp

by JohnnyWic
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

crypto_loan_repay

Repay a crypto loan by specifying the loan order ID and repayment amount.

Instructions

Repay a crypto loan.

Args: order_id: Loan order ID. amount: Repay amount.

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": {
      "order_id": "<order_id>",
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "crypto_loan_repay"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
order_idYes
amountYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and does not mention any side effects, safety considerations, permissions required, or whether it is destructive (e.g., modifies loan status). The description is insufficient for the agent to understand implications.

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 short (two lines) but lacks structure. The Args are listed inline without proper formatting or separation. It is concise but could be more organized (e.g., using bullet points or a clear pattern).

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 complexity (financial transaction with many siblings) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about the loan type, expected behavior, and results. It does not explain what happens after repayment or how it differs from sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient information.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%. The description adds only a brief label for each parameter (order_id as 'Loan order ID', amount as 'Repay amount') without specifying units, format, constraints, or how to obtain valid values. For a financial transaction tool, this is inadequate.

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 ('Repay a crypto loan') and lists the two arguments. However, it fails to distinguish this tool from many sibling repayment tools like new_crypto_loan_fixed_repay, new_crypto_loan_flexible_repay, and manual_repay, which have similar purposes.

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 the numerous sibling repayment tools. No prerequisites, conditions, or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent without contextual decision 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