bity_list_accounts
Read-onlyIdempotent
Lista as contas Bity conectadas a este install — id, label.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No |
Bity
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the accounts are 'conectadas a este install' (connected to this install), providing a useful scoping detail, but does not elaborate on other behaviors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one line) and front-loaded. However, it could include a brief note on the parameter without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but fails to document the parameter. It is complete enough for a basic understanding but not fully informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter 'account' with no description (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain this parameter at all, leaving its purpose ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists Bity accounts connected to the installation, specifying it returns id and label. The verb 'lista' (lists) and resource 'contas Bity' are distinct from sibling tools like bity_get_balance.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs other bity tools. The description only states what it does without any context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
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.
Naming Consistency2/5
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.
Tool Count3/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.