okx_activate_option
Activate an option contract on OKX exchange to enable trading and manage option positions.
Instructions
[L:WRITE] CAT:[账户] | → 请先调用 agent_catalog
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Activate an option contract on OKX exchange to enable trading and manage option positions.
[L:WRITE] CAT:[账户] | → 请先调用 agent_catalog
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description only conveys that it is a write operation ([L:WRITE]), but no other behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, or authorization needs are disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short with two segments: a label and an instruction. It is concise but not necessarily well-structured, as the most critical information (what the tool does) is missing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, parameters, and output schema, the description is insufficient for an AI agent to understand how to use the tool correctly. It does not explain the activation process, expected outcomes, or side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters in the input schema, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description indicates it is a write operation for the account category but does not clearly state what 'activating an option' entails. The purpose is vague, relying on the tool name and the instruction to call agent_catalog for context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to call agent_catalog first, providing a clear prerequisite. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/okx-wallet-H/hvip-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server