Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hvip MCP Server

hvip MCP Server

by okx-wallet-H
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

outcomes_get_ticker

Retrieve the current ticker price for a specific outcome (YES or NO) in a prediction market by providing the market ID.

Instructions

[L:READ] CAT:[预测] | → 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": {
      "marketId": "<marketId>",
      "outcome": "<outcome>"
    },
    "name": "outcomes_get_ticker"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
outcomeYes结果方向
marketIdYes市场ID

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 includes '[L:READ]' suggesting read-only behavior, but does not elaborate on what data is returned, rate limits, or any side effects. This minimal transparency is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 (using non-English tags) and lacks self-contained meaning. While it is concise, it sacrifices clarity, making it hard for an agent to interpret without additional context.

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?

For a read tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool returns or how it differs from similar tools. The prerequisite pointer to agent_catalog is useful but not enough; the overall context is incomplete.

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%: both parameters are described in Chinese (marketId: '市场ID', outcome: '结果方向'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameters 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 and non-English. It does not explicitly state that the tool retrieves a ticker (price/status) for a prediction market outcome. The name implies it, but the description fails to clarify. It only provides metadata-like tags and a prerequisite instruction.

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, indicating a prerequisite, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like outcomes_get_market or outcomes_get_orderbook. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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