hvip MCP Server

okx_execute_quote

Execute a quote from an OKX RFQ response by providing product ID, quote ID, RFQ ID, and size.

Instructions

[L:READ] 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>",
      "quoteId": "<quoteId>",
      "rfqId": "<rfqId>",
      "sz": "<sz>"
    },
    "name": "okx_execute_quote"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sz`	Yes	成交数量。必填
`rfqId`	Yes	RFQ ID。必填
`instId`	Yes	产品ID。必填
`quoteId`	Yes	报价ID。必填

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.1Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

D1.9/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. The tag '[L:READ]' suggests a read operation, but executing a quote is clearly a write/mutation. This internal contradiction misleads the agent about the tool's side effects. No other behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, idempotency) are mentioned.

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 (one line) but lacks essential information, making it under-specified rather than concise. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the single sentence is insufficient.

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 complexity of executing a quote (a trading operation), the description is severely incomplete. No output schema, no explanation of the tool's function, no error conditions, no safety or idempotency notes. The prerequisite is vague ('call 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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with each parameter having a Chinese description (e.g., '成交数量'). However, these descriptions merely restate the parameter purpose and do not add meaningful context beyond the schema. Parameter semantics are minimally adequate.

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 provides tags like '[L:READ]' and a category 'CAT:[策略-RFQ]' but fails to explicitly state that this tool executes a quote. The purpose is only implied by the tool name, and the description does not clarify what action is performed.

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 includes a prerequisite ('请先调用 agent_catalog') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling RFQ tools (e.g., okx_create_quote, okx_cancel_quote). No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

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

Deploy Server