Crypto Exchange SDK Documentation MCP

by flytam

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.4.6
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool is clearly scoped to a specific exchange and operation: '_methods' lists available methods while '_method_detail' provides details for a selected method. Exchange names in the tool names eliminate any possible overlap or confusion.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a predictable pattern: {exchange}_methods and {exchange}_method_detail. The naming is uniformly lowercase snake_case, and even the okx_dex_api variant still follows the same structural convention.
Tool Count5/5
With 12 tools covering 6 exchanges (2 per exchange), the count is well-scoped for a documentation server. Each tool has a distinct role, and the count is neither bloated nor thin.
Completeness5/5
The tool set fully covers its documentation purpose: for every supported exchange, you can retrieve a full method list and then drill into detailed documentation for any specific method. No obvious missing operations or dead ends.
Average 3.8/5 across 12 of 12 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Query' implies read-only behavior, and the description lists the content of the returned documentation (request parameters, response formats, usage examples, error handling), which gives some transparency. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation has no side effects, nor does it mention authentication, rate limits, or the nature of the response (structured vs unstructured).
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 a single sentence that is relatively concise, with the main purpose stated first. The latter half ('helping developers correctly integrate and use corresponding API interfaces') is somewhat redundant, but overall it is not bloated and remains readable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple schema (one required param, no output schema), the description adequately explains what the tool returns (technical documentation with specific content categories). It does not mention that the method name should come from the corresponding 'binance_methods' list or provide examples, but these are nice-to-have rather than essential for a basic lookup tool.
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?
The schema covers 100% of the parameter documentation with 'method' described as 'The specific method name to query'. The tool description adds no extra detail beyond the schema, such as examples or format, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 queries detailed usage information for specific API methods in the Binance Exchange SDK, which is a specific verb+resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'binance_methods' (likely a list), but 'detailed usage information' implicitly distinguishes it from a list endpoint.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that 'binance_methods' should be used to list available methods, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. The purpose is self-evident, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It discloses the return content (complete method inventory, descriptions, usage instructions) but omits any details about side effects, rate limits, or that it is a read-only operation beyond the verb 'Get'.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise explanation of the return value and audience. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool, the description adequately covers what is returned and its purpose. However, it does not mention how the list relates to sibling detail tools or any potential limitations, which would add useful context for an agent.
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 description adds no parameter-specific semantics. Baseline is 4 for parameterless tools.
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 Gets 'all API method lists and related documentation' for Gate Exchange SDK, with a specific resource and scope. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on Gate and the complete inventory, but does not explicitly contrast with gate_method_detail.
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 given on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description implies use for understanding available interfaces but fails to mention alternatives like gate_method_detail or when to prefer one over the other.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lists content categories ('request parameters, response formats, usage examples, error handling') which adds some transparency, but with no annotations, it fails to disclose output format, read-only nature, or potential errors explicitly.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and mostly efficient. The trailing 'etc.' and 'helping developers' add slight fluff but do not significantly hurt clarity.
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 1-parameter query, the description gives an overview of content, but it lacks details on return format, error behavior, or method name requirements, and there is no output schema to compensate.
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 100%, with parameter description 'The specific method name to query'. The main description only reinforces 'specific' but adds no format, syntax, or example, so it provides little 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 'Query detailed usage information for specific API methods in Gate Exchange SDK', giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like gate_methods (likely listing methods) and other exchange detail tools.
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 phrase 'specific API methods' implies use when detailed info is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It does clarify the tool is an informational query that returns technical documentation rather than executing the API method. However, it does not mention limitations, error behavior, or whether authentication is needed, which would enhance transparency.
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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action ('Query detailed usage information') and includes only useful information. No filler or redundant phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the response will contain (request parameters, response formats, examples, error handling). It could be more complete by mentioning prerequisite steps like first obtaining the method name from okx_methods, but overall it is sufficient.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'method' is already described as 'The specific method name to query'. The description does not add examples of valid method names or formatting, so it does not add value beyond 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 it queries detailed usage information for specific API methods in OKX Exchange SDK. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the detailed documentation focus distinguishes it from sibling list tools like okx_methods, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.
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 intended usage is implied: use this tool when you need complete technical documentation for a specific OKX API method. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives such as okx_methods or okx_dex_api_method_detail, nor does it state exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions the documentation contents (request params, response formats, examples, error handling) but does not state whether it is read-only, requires auth, or behaves on invalid input. No contradictions.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds meaningful information. No fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description plus schema adequately cover purpose and output expectations. The lack of output schema is mitigated by enumerating included documentation types, though the relationship with sibling tools is not explicit.
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 100% and the parameter description is already clear. The tool description adds only 'specific' context and does not provide further format, examples, or value guidance 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 queries detailed usage information for specific API methods in the Bitget Exchange SDK. It distinguishes from siblings like gate_method_detail by naming Bitget and from bitget_methods by emphasizing 'specific' methods.
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 description implies usage for specific methods but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus bitget_methods or other method_detail tools. No mention of prerequisites such as first listing methods or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the tool's output scope (request params, response formats, examples, error handling) but does not explicitly mention that it is a read-only/safe operation. Given its query nature, this is adequate but not fully explicit.
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 a single well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and scope without redundancy, listing key content areas (parameters, formats, examples, errors) succinctly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description provides a reasonable overview of what the tool returns (parameters, formats, examples, errors) even without an output schema. It lacks explicit usage context like whether to call method list first, but for a simple documentation tool, this is fairly complete.
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?
The schema fully describes the single 'method' parameter (100% coverage), so the description adds little semantic value beyond reaffirming it is a method name. Baseline 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.
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 identifies a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('OKX DEX API methods'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like okx_dex_api_methods by focusing on detailed per-method information rather than listing.
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 description implies usage for retrieving details of a known method, but it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools (e.g., okx_dex_api_methods for listing) or state when not to use it. Usage context is implied, not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a complete method inventory with descriptions and usage instructions, but does not mention any potential side effects, authentication needs, or behavior beyond the return value. For a read-only listing, this is minimal but adequate.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence expands on the return contents but is somewhat redundant with the first ('Get all API method lists' vs 'returns a complete method inventory'). Still, it is compact and understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description covers the key point: it returns a complete inventory of methods with descriptions and usage instructions. This is sufficient for a high-level method listing, though it lacks specifics on the structure of the returned data.
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 takes zero parameters, and the schema confirms an empty object. With no parameters to document, the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and doesn't, correctly focusing on the output.
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 fetches all API method lists and related documentation for the Binance Exchange SDK. It distinguishes itself from siblings like binance_method_detail by focusing on the complete inventory rather than a single method's detail.
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 description implies this is a starting point for developers to understand available functional interfaces, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like binance_method_detail or similar tools for other exchanges. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does state the tool 'returns a complete method inventory, including basic descriptions and usage instructions for each method,' which describes the return content. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the data is static or paginated, leaving some behavioral transparency gaps.
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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the main purpose and then elaborate on the returned inventory. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and 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?
Given the simple nature of the tool (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core function and return value. However, it misses an opportunity to reference the sibling detail tools (e.g., okx_method_detail) to guide users on when to use this listing tool versus a detail lookup, so it is not fully complete in context.
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, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's output rather than inputs, which is correct for a parameterless catalog tool.
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's function: 'Get all API method lists and related documentation supported by OKX Exchange SDK.' The verb 'Get' is specific, the resource is clearly 'API method lists and related documentation,' and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming OKX and implying it's the list-level alternative to the detail tools.
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 description implies usage by saying it 'helping developers understand available functional interfaces,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like okx_method_detail. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns a complete method inventory with descriptions and usage instructions, which outlines output content. However, it does not discuss output format, limitations, or explicitly confirm read-only behavior, though 'Get' suggests it.
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 consists of two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and concise in wording. No unnecessary details or repetition are present, with each sentence contributing to the understanding of the tool's purpose and output.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameterless tool with no annotations or output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the user will receive: a complete method list with descriptions and usage instructions. It provides enough context for typical use, though it could be slightly more explicit about the relationship to 'bitget_method_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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema trivially covers all semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no conflicting or redundant parameter information, implicitly indicating no inputs are required.
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 retrieves all API method lists and related documentation for the Bitget Exchange SDK, using the specific verb 'Get' and identifying the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'bitget_method_detail' by emphasizing the complete inventory, whereas the detail tool likely focuses on a single method.
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 description implies usage for developers needing an overview of available functional interfaces, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus 'bitget_method_detail' or other exchange method listers. No exclusions or alternatives are named, leaving the choice somewhat implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently indicates that the tool returns documentation content (request parameters, response formats, usage examples, error handling) rather than performing an actual API call. This is sufficient behavioral disclosure for a read-only lookup 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Query') and resource ('detailed usage information'), with supporting detail on what is included. No wasted words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does and what it returns (technical documentation). It could mention that method names come from the Bybit SDK or how to discover them via sibling tools, but that's not essential for this tool's core function.
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 description coverage is 100% (the 'method' parameter is described as 'The specific method name to query'). The description repeats this in prose ('specific API methods') but adds no further semantic detail. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents the parameter fully.
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's purpose with a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('detailed usage information for specific API methods in Bybit Exchange SDK'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bybit_methods by focusing on 'detail' for a specific method rather than listing methods, which is evident from both the name and description.
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 description implies usage when one needs detailed technical documentation for a specific Bybit API method, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like bybit_methods to first discover available methods. There is no exclusions or alternative guidance, so it relies on context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'a complete method inventory, including basic descriptions and usage instructions', which is useful. However, it does not mention potential traits like pagination, rate limits, or that this is a read-only operation, though that is implied by 'Get'. The disclosure is adequate but not deep.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action 'Get all API method lists'. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information. It is appropriately concise for a simple, parameterless tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: it states what is returned, includes descriptive content, and clarifies the purpose. It does not mention how to get details for individual methods, but that is covered by the sibling okay_dex_api_method_detail. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's function and expected output.
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 is an empty object, so the description has nothing to explain. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the return content rather than parameters.
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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource: 'all API method lists and related documentation supported by OKX DEX API'. It explicitly names the exchange and API type, distinguishing it from sibling tools like okx_methods and gate_methods. The purpose is unambiguous.
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 description implies usage for discovering available methods ('helping developers understand available functional interfaces'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this over okx_dex_api_method_detail or other method-list siblings. No exclusions or alternative references are given, but the context signals the intended discovery use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool returns a 'complete method inventory' with basic descriptions and usage instructions, which sufficiently discloses the output behavior for a read-only listing operation. It does not mention any side effects, but none are expected.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Get all...'). Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.
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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what is returned (all methods, descriptions, usage instructions) and the purpose (helping developers understand interfaces). No additional context is needed.
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, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because there are none to document, which aligns with the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.
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's function: 'Get all API method lists and related documentation supported by Bybit Exchange SDK.' It uses a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('API method lists'), and is distinct from sibling tools like bybit_method_detail, which focus on individual method details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context: to retrieve a complete inventory of Bybit SDK methods with descriptions and instructions. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or directly name alternatives like bybit_method_detail, but the context is clear enough for a simple listing tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![exchange-sdk-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/flytam/exchange-sdk-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/flytam/exchange-sdk-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![exchange-sdk-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/flytam/exchange-sdk-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/flytam/exchange-sdk-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/flytam/exchange-sdk-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server