htx-mcp

HTX Diagnose Private Access

htx_diagnose_private_access

Read-onlyIdempotent

Diagnose private API access to HTX spot and USDT-swap endpoints without trading. Verifies credentials and hosts, reports sanitized errors, and identifies access failures safely.

Instructions

Diagnose authenticated access to HTX spot and USDT-swap private APIs without trading.

The result reports credential presence, configured hosts, each check's success, and sanitized HTX error codes/messages. It never returns a secret, signature, or signed URL.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "htx_diagnose_private_access"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.3Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses specific output behavior: reported fields, sanitized error codes/messages, and a guarantee to never return secrets, signatures, or signed URLs. This materially helps an agent trust and interpret the result.

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?

Three short sentences, with the primary action front-loaded and no redundant wording. Every sentence adds useful information about purpose, output, or safety.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool with an output schema, the description gives all necessary context: what is diagnosed, what the result contains, and critical privacy behavior. Nothing important is missing for an agent to decide to invoke it.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is complete, so there are no undocumented inputs for the description to clarify. The baseline for a no-parameter tool applies, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior instead.

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 states a clear, specific purpose: diagnosing authenticated access to HTX spot and USDT-swap private APIs. It also distinguishes itself from trading and snapshot tools by explicitly noting this is a diagnostic action 'without trading.'

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'without trading' wording implies the tool is for pre-trade connectivity and credential checks, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over get_account_snapshot or get_portfolio_snapshot. Usage guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server