hvip MCP Server

okx_create_subaccount_api_key

Create an API key for an OKX subaccount by providing subaccount name, label, passphrase, and permissions.

Instructions

[L:WRITE] CAT:[账户-子账户] | → 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": {
      "subAcct": "<subAcct>",
      "label": "<label>",
      "passphrase": "<passphrase>",
      "perm": "<perm>"
    },
    "name": "okx_create_subaccount_api_key"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ip`	No	IP白名单，多个用逗号分隔
`perm`	Yes	权限字符串，如 read_only、trade
`label`	Yes	API Key备注名称。必填
`subAcct`	Yes	子账户名称。必填
`passphrase`	Yes	API Key交易密码。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, so the description carries the full burden. It only hints at a write operation via 'L:WRITE' but does not disclose required permissions, side effects, or limitations. The description fails to inform the agent of behavioral traits beyond the obvious.

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 concise (one line) but poorly structured. It mixes Chinese and English with brackets, lacking clear sentences. The compactness is not an asset because it sacrifices clarity.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It merely provides a prerequisite and a category, leaving the agent without enough context to correctly invoke the 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 input schema has 100% parameter descriptions (in Chinese), so the schema already documents parameter semantics. The tool description adds no additional information about the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 shorthand 'L:WRITE' and a category tag, but doesn't clearly state what the tool does. The purpose is partially inferred from the name 'create_subaccount_api_key', but the description adds no explicit verb+resource definition. The prerequisite note '请先调用 agent_catalog' distracts rather than clarifies.

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 only usage guidance is '请先调用 agent_catalog', which is a prerequisite but not a when-to-use or when-not-to-use directive. No comparison with sibling tools like get, reset, or delete subaccount API keys is provided.

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

Deploy Server