hvip MCP Server

okx_create_rfq

Creates a request for quote (RFQ) on OKX exchange. Specify instrument ID, side (buy/sell), size, and optional size type (base or quote).

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": {
      "instId": "<instId>",
      "side": "<side>",
      "sz": "<sz>"
    },
    "name": "okx_create_rfq"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sz`	Yes	数量。必填
`side`	Yes	买卖方向。buy=买入, sell=卖出
`instId`	Yes	产品ID。必填
`szType`	No	数量类型。base=按币, quote=按计价币

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.1Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided. The description only tags the tool as a write operation but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond the basic write indication.

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 brief but also cryptic, sacrificing clarity for brevity. It lacks a clear front-loaded purpose statement and uses ambiguous formatting.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description fails to provide essential context such as return values, success/failure indicators, or invocation prerequisites beyond calling agent_catalog.

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%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds no further meaning to parameters, so baseline 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 uses cryptic tags ('[L:WRITE]', 'CAT:[策略-RFQ]') and a prerequisite note, but does not explicitly state that the tool creates a Request For Quote (RFQ). The purpose is implied by the name but not clearly articulated.

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 instructs to call agent_catalog first, providing a prerequisite. However, there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like okx_create_quote 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.

Deploy Server