Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bybit-mcp

bybit-mcp

by JohnnyWic
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_leveraged_token_market

Retrieve market data for leveraged tokens including net asset value (NAV) and leverage. Specify the token abbreviation to get current metrics.

Instructions

Get leveraged token market data (NAV, leverage, etc.).

Args: lt_coin: Leveraged token abbreviation, e.g., BTC3L.

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": {
      "lt_coin": "<lt_coin>"
    },
    "name": "get_leveraged_token_market"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lt_coinYes

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 exist, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, side effects, or return format. It only implies a read operation without explicit safety cues.

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 brief and includes an Args section, though the Args header is redundant with the schema. It is front-loaded with the purpose, but the structure could be tighter. Still, it is efficient.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter tool and no output schema, the description provides a basic idea of output (NAV, leverage, etc.) but lacks completeness on return format or behavior. It is adequate but could be improved with more details.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must add significant meaning. It only provides an example for lt_coin (e.g., BTC3L) but no format, allowed values, or dynamic behavior. It adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 tool gets leveraged token market data, specifying fields like NAV and leverage. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_leveraged_token_info' which likely gets general info. The verb 'Get' and resource 'leveraged token market data' are explicit.

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 like get_leveraged_token_info. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage are provided. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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