Set/update exchange-side stop-loss and take-profit on an open position (REAL; binance futures, bybit linear; bingx spot unsupported). Params: exchange, symbol, stopLossPct/takeProfitPct (percent from entry) or absolute stopLossPrice/takeProfitPrice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | ||
| exchange | Yes | ||
| stopLossPct | No | ||
| stopLossPrice | No | ||
| takeProfitPct | No | ||
| takeProfitPrice | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It appropriately warns that this is 'REAL' and exchange-side, and it restricts supported exchanges. However, it does not disclose side effects such as overwriting existing SL/TP, what the return value is, or what happens on failure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two dense sentences carry the full purpose, risk qualifier, venue restrictions, and parameter semantics. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a real-order mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides strong parameter and venue context. However, it lacks coverage of important invocation context: what the tool returns, whether it replaces existing SL/TP terms, and failure behavior. This leaves clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: all six parameters are named, the pct vs absolute distinction is explained, and the percent-from-entry semantics are provided. It could be more explicit about allowed parameter combinations and units, so a 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Set/update') and a concrete resource ('exchange-side stop-loss and take-profit on an open position'). It also flags this as REAL and states supported venues, making it clearly distinguishable from siblings like close_position, place_order, and set_hedge_protection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It clearly communicates when to use the tool: to set or update exchange-side SL/TP on an open position. It also gives an exclusion ('bingx spot unsupported'), which helps avoid misuse. It stops short of naming alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, so it is not a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools serve distinct purposes (hedging, funding, agents, market data), but several overlap heavily: get_basis_regime, get_basis_signal, get_basis_history, analyze_pair_liquidity, and get_perp_arbitrage all analyze exchange spreads/basis with blurred boundaries. Similarly, close_hedged_position vs close_position and hedge_status vs list_hedge_positions vs get_positions could cause misselection without careful reading.
The set predominantly follows a verb_noun pattern (get_*, open_*, close_*, set_*, list_*, place_*) which is predictable and readable. Minor deviations exist: agent_chat, agent_trigger, and square_post break the convention, and the hedge-specific tools mix status/list/adjust naming inconsistently.
35 tools is on the heavy side and pushes past the ideal scope for a single server. Many tools are data-retrieval variants (basis history/regime/signal/liquidity) that could be consolidated, and the breadth from news to square posts to agent management makes the surface feel sprawling rather than focused.
Core workflows (hedging, basis analysis, funding arbitrage, agent interaction, position management) are well covered, but there are noticeable gaps: there is no cancel_order tool despite get_open_orders and place_order existing, no order history or trade history, and no exchange-side position listing for real user positions. The server covers its niche but leaves some common trading dead ends.