Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hvip MCP Server

hvip MCP Server

by okx-wallet-H
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

okx_get_staking_orders

Retrieve OKX staking orders filtered by state and product ID to track pending, active, or redeemed positions.

Instructions

[L:READ] CAT:[金融] | → 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_staking_orders"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo返回条数，默认100
stateNo订单状态。1=等待申购, 2=申购中, 3=申购成功, 4=赎回中, 5=赎回成功, 6=已取消
productIdNo产品ID，如 ETH。可选

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. The description adds '[L:READ]' which may indicate read-only, but it is non-standard and insufficient. No disclosure of behavioral traits like data freshness, pagination, or error conditions beyond what the name implies.

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 but cryptic and inefficient. Uses brackets and Chinese text with no clear structure. It sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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?

No output schema is provided. The description does not explain return values, pagination, or behavior. Referencing agent_catalog suggests missing context. The tool definition is incomplete for an AI agent.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 is cryptic: '[L:READ] CAT:[金融] | → 请先调用 agent_catalog'. It hints at a read operation and a category but does not clearly state that this tool retrieves staking orders. The purpose is vague and requires prior knowledge.

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_staking_offers or okx_get_staking_active_orders. The only instruction is to call agent_catalog first, which is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline.

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