Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bybit-mcp

bybit-mcp

by JohnnyWic
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_sub_deposit_address

Retrieve the deposit address for a sub-account by specifying the coin, chain type, and sub-member ID.

Instructions

Get sub account deposit address.

Args: coin: Coin name, e.g., BTC. chain_type: Chain type, e.g., ETH. sub_member_id: Sub UID.

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": {
      "coin": "<coin>",
      "chain_type": "<chain_type>",
      "sub_member_id": "<sub_member_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_sub_deposit_address"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
coinYes
chain_typeYes
sub_member_idYes

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?

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. With no annotation support, the description carries full burden but is minimal.

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 a single purpose line and a three-line arg list, containing no redundant information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not mention the return value format, leaving ambiguity about what the tool returns. Given the simplicity, a mention of the output (e.g., deposit address) would improve completeness.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds examples for each parameter (e.g., 'coin: e.g., BTC'), which aids understanding. However, it does not explain origin or constraints for sub_member_id or acceptable values for chain_type.

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 'Get sub account deposit address.' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_master_deposit_address' and 'get_deposit_records'.

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 vs alternatives (e.g., get_master_deposit_address). It does not specify that it is for sub-accounts, nor does it mention prerequisites or contexts where it is appropriate.

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