MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.): log in in the browser, copy the access token. Best: add it to this server's config as a header Authorization: Bearer <token> for a permanent, non-expiring connection. Or paste it here for a session-only login: call with { token: "" } after the user pastes, or with no args to get the link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the difference between permanent config-based authentication and session-only token-based authentication, and mentions the non-expiring nature of the config approach. The idempotentHint is consistent with calling with the same token repeatedly.
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?
The description is fairly concise for the amount of information conveyed, with each sentence serving a purpose. It is front-loaded with the primary audience and action, but could be slightly streamlined without losing clarity.
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?
Given the tool's importance and no output schema, the description covers the main authentication flow and two usage methods. However, it omits error scenarios, response format, and what happens after successful authentication (e.g., access to other tools), leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'token' parameter as a JWT and clarifying that it is optional (calling with no arguments yields a link). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's bare type specification.
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 clearly states the tool is for authentication, explaining how to log in via browser and obtain an access token. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which are authentication-related.
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?
The description provides explicit guidance on two usage paths: adding the token to config for permanent access or passing it as a parameter for session-only login. It also notes calling with no arguments to get a link, offering clear context for when to use each approach, though it does not explicitly rule out other uses.
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.
Each Bity tool targets a distinct resource (balance, orders, ticker, trades, orderbook) and the platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) serve clearly separate functions. There is no real overlap or ambiguity between any of the tools.
The Bity tools use a 'bity_' prefix, but the naming pattern is inconsistent: bity_get_balance uses a verb, while bity_orderbook and bity_ticker are just nouns. The non-Bity tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) follow no common pattern and break the verb_noun convention.
At 14 tools, the count is within a reasonable range, but the server mixes a focused Bity integration with generic platform tools (marketplace, report_bug, etc.), making the scope feel inflated. A dedicated Bity server would not need the platform-layer tools, so the count is slightly high for the apparent purpose.
The Bity toolset covers read-only operations: balance, orders, ticker, trades, orderbook. There is no tool to create, cancel, or modify orders, which is a fundamental omission for a trading exchange. The server cannot execute any trades, so it fails to provide a complete lifecycle for its core domain.