hvip MCP Server

okx_order_precheck

Prevalidate order parameters for OKX trading to catch invalid inputs before submission, preventing errors and failed trades.

Instructions

[L:READ] CAT:[交易] | → 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": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "okx_order_precheck"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes	订单参数JSON字符串，如 '{"instId":"BTC-USDT","tdMode":"cash","side":"buy","ordType":"limit","sz":"0.001","px":"60000"}'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.1Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

D1.7/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or what side effects it has. The '[L:READ]' prefix hints at readonly but is not part of the description and is ambiguous.

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 lacks substance. While it is front-loaded with '[L:READ]' and category, the critical purpose and usage details are missing. Conciseness should not sacrifice completeness; here it results in an under-specified tool.

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 tool's role as an order precheck among many trading tools, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no information about return values, required permissions, or how the precheck result is used. With no output schema, the agent is left guessing what the tool returns.

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% for the single 'params' parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's description of '订单参数JSON字符串' (order parameters JSON string). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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:[交易] | → 请先调用 agent_catalog'. It suggests a read operation (L:READ) and a trade category, but does not clearly state that the tool pre-checks an order. The purpose is unclear and requires additional context from 'agent_catalog'.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The only instruction is to call 'agent_catalog' first, but no explanation of why or what that provides. Sibling tools like 'okx_place_order' or 'okx_preflight_check' likely overlap in functionality, but no differentiation is provided.

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

Deploy Server