Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bybit-mcp

bybit-mcp

by JohnnyWic
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

purchase_leveraged_token

Buy leveraged tokens by specifying the token abbreviation and USDT amount. An optional serial number allows tracking.

Instructions

Purchase a leveraged token.

Args: lt_coin: Leveraged token abbreviation, e.g., BTC3L. lt_amount: Purchase amount in USDT. serial_no: Unique serial number (optional).

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>",
      "lt_amount": "<lt_amount>"
    },
    "name": "purchase_leveraged_token"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lt_coinYes
lt_amountYes
serial_noNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose safety and behavioral aspects. It fails to mention potential side effects (e.g., fees, slippage), permission requirements, or idempotency. This is inadequate for a financial transaction tool.

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 very concise, with the purpose stated upfront and parameter details in a clear list. 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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description should explain the return value (e.g., order ID, status). It also omits error conditions, confirmation steps, or expected behavior for duplicate serial numbers. The tool's context (financial purchase) demands more detail.

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 description provides meaningful context for all three parameters: lt_coin (example token abbreviation), lt_amount (purchase amount in USDT), and serial_no (optional unique ID). This adds value beyond the bare schema types.

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 ('Purchase') and the resource ('a leveraged token'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'redeem_leveraged_token'.

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 (e.g., spot orders, earn orders). Prerequisites, such as balance requirements or token availability, are not mentioned.

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