Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hvip MCP Server

hvip MCP Server

by okx-wallet-H
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

okx_cancel_batch_rfqs

Cancel multiple RFQ requests in batch on OKX exchange to manage quotes efficiently. Provide an array of RFQ IDs as input.

Instructions

[L:WRITE] CAT:[策略-RFQ] | → 请先调用 agent_catalog

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": {
      "rfqIds": "<rfqIds>"
    },
    "name": "okx_cancel_batch_rfqs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rfqIdsYesRFQ ID数组JSON字符串，如 '["123","456"]'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.1

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. The [L:WRITE] label hints at a write operation, but there is no disclosure about destructive effects, rate limits, or what happens upon cancellation. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short but cryptic and not front-loaded with purpose. It uses non-English labels without explanation, making it inefficient for an agent to parse meaning quickly.

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 complexity of batch cancelling RFQs, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, or prerequisites beyond the vague 'call agent_catalog'. No output schema exists 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%, and the schema already describes the rfqIds parameter clearly (JSON array of IDs). The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is cryptic, using labels like [L:WRITE] and CAT:[策略-RFQ] without clear explanation. It does not explicitly state that this tool cancels multiple RFQs, instead implying a prerequisite call to agent_catalog. This obscures the core purpose.

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?

The description only mentions a prerequisite ('请先调用 agent_catalog'), which provides a minimal usage hint. However, it fails to compare with sibling tools like okx_cancel_rfq or okx_cancel_all_rfqs, and does not explain when to use this batch version.

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