hvip MCP Server

okx_get_taker_flow

Retrieve taker flow data for a specified currency from OKX, with optional time range and instrument type (swap or futures).

Instructions

[L:READ] CAT:[公共] | → 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": {
      "ccy": "<ccy>"
    },
    "name": "okx_get_taker_flow"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ccy`	Yes	币种，如 BTC。必填
`end`	No	结束时间戳(ms)
`begin`	No	开始时间戳(ms)
`instType`	No	产品类型。SWAP=永续, FUTURES=交割

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.1Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

D1.8/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only includes '[L:READ]' hinting at a read operation, but lacks details about rate limits, authentication needs, side effects, or what the tool does beyond reading. The description is insufficient.

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 the brevity comes at the expense of clarity. It fails to provide essential information, making it under-informative rather than concise.

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 lack of output schema and the tool's complexity (4 parameters), the description does not explain what data is returned or how the tool fits into broader usage. The instruction to call agent_catalog adds confusion rather than completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters with descriptions. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what is in the schema, maintaining the baseline of 3.

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 does not explicitly state that the tool retrieves taker flow data for OKX. It only provides a cryptic instruction to call agent_catalog first, leaving the actual purpose unclear. The name suggests the purpose but the description fails to articulate it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like okx_get_taker_volume or okx_get_taker_flow_contract. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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

Deploy Server