hvip MCP Server

okx_close_position

Close a trading position on OKX exchange. Specify the product ID, margin mode, and position side to execute the close.

Instructions

[L:WRITE] CAT:[交易] | → 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": {
      "instId": "<instId>"
    },
    "name": "okx_close_position"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ccy`	No	保证金币种（全仓可选填）
`instId`	Yes	产品ID，如 BTC-USDT-SWAP。必填
`mgnMode`	No	保证金模式
`posSide`	No	持仓方向。long=平多头, short=平空头。全仓必填

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.1Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as destructiveness, authorization needs, or side effects. The '[L:WRITE]' hint suggests a write operation but is insufficient for transparency.

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 extremely short but not concise in a helpful manner. It uses cryptic labels like '[L:WRITE]' and 'CAT:[交易]' without clear structure, and does not front-load the core purpose.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the tool has 4 parameters and a dependency on agent_catalog, the description is severely incomplete. No information about return values, prerequisites beyond the call, or behavior is provided.

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%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is in the schema, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 does not clearly state what the tool does. It includes a label '[L:WRITE]' and a category 'CAT:[交易]', but fails to describe the action of closing a position. The purpose is only implied by the tool name.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions a prerequisite ('请先调用 agent_catalog'), which is not usage context or differentiation from sibling tools.

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

Deploy Server