Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hvip MCP Server

hvip MCP Server

by okx-wallet-H
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

okx_get_spread_ticker

Retrieve ticker data for an OKX spread contract by specifying its spread ID, enabling monitoring of price and market information.

Instructions

[L:READ] CAT:[策略-价差] | → 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": {
      "sprdId": "<sprdId>"
    },
    "name": "okx_get_spread_ticker"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sprdIdYes价差合约ID，如 BTC-USD-SWAP_BTC-USD-260925

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.1

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
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 indicates a read operation via '[L:READ]', which is helpful, but lacks details about any side effects, permissions, or data returned. For a read tool, minimal behavioral info is given.

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 very short but not clear or well-structured. The use of tags and a precondition without explanation makes it cryptic. True conciseness requires clarity, which is missing here.

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 existence of many sibling spread tools, the description should clarify what a ticker represents and how this tool differs from others (e.g., orderbook, trades, candles). The output schema is absent, so the description should at least hint at return format. It fails to provide sufficient context.

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%: the only parameter 'sprdId' has an example in its description. The tool description does not add any additional semantic value beyond what's in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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:READ] CAT:[策略-价差]' and a precondition '→ 请先调用 agent_catalog', but does not clearly state that the tool retrieves the ticker for a specific spread. The purpose can be inferred from the tool name and the parameter description, but the description itself is vague.

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 like okx_get_spreads, okx_get_spread_orderbook, or other spread tools. The only instruction is to call agent_catalog first, which is a prerequisite rather than usage context.

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