Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hvip MCP Server

hvip MCP Server

by okx-wallet-H
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

okx_get_positions_history

Retrieve historical positions from OKX exchange with optional filters by product ID, product type, and limit.

Instructions

[L:READ] CAT:[账户] | → 请先调用 agent_catalog

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "okx_get_positions_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo返回条数，默认100
instIdNo产品ID，如 BTC-USDT-SWAP
instTypeNo产品类型。MARGIN=杠杆, SWAP=永续, FUTURES=交割, OPTION=期权。不填返回全部

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.1

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
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 includes a read-only hint via '[L:READ]', but does not disclose other behaviors such as pagination limits, authentication requirements, potential performance impacts, or whether results are sorted by time. The description is insufficient for understanding tool behavior.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is extremely concise (single line), which is efficient but comes at the cost of completeness. It front-loads a metadata tag and prerequisite, but lacks explanatory detail for a tool with moderate complexity.

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?

The tool has no output schema and 3 parameters, but the description does not explain return values, ordering, or any limitations. The prerequisite note is useful but overall completeness is low; an agent would lack key information to confidently use this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%—all three parameters (limit, instId, instType) are described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema is adequate.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description includes '[L:READ]' indicating a read operation, and the name 'get_positions_history' implies retrieving historical positions. However, the description does not explicitly state what data is returned or how it differs from current positions, leaving the purpose somewhat implied.

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, which is a usage guideline, but it lacks context on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like okx_get_positions or other history tools. No comparison or exclusion criteria are provided.

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