Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bybit-mcp

bybit-mcp

by JohnnyWic
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_open_interest

Retrieve open interest data for a trading symbol by specifying category, interval, and record limit.

Instructions

Get open interest data.

Args: category: Product type: linear, inverse. symbol: Symbol, e.g., BTCUSDT. interval_time: Interval: 5min, 15min, 30min, 1h, 4h, 1d. limit: Number of records (default: 50, max: 200).

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": {
      "category": "<category>",
      "symbol": "<symbol>",
      "interval_time": "<interval_time>"
    },
    "name": "get_open_interest"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
categoryYes
symbolYes
interval_timeYes
limitNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It merely states 'Get open interest data' implying a read operation, but lacks details on side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling.

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 with no wasted words. It presents the purpose in one sentence followed by a clear parameter list. Every element is necessary and well-structured.

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 simple query tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately documents the inputs. However, it lacks contextual details such as expected output format or data freshness, which would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds significant value by explaining each parameter: category (linear/inverse), symbol (e.g., BTCUSDT), interval_time (e.g., 5min), and limit with default/max. This meaningfully supplements the schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get open interest data.' It specifies the resource (open interest) and the action (get). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_kline' or 'get_funding_rate_history', the tool name itself is specific enough.

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. The description only lists parameters without any context on appropriate usage scenarios, 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