Returns connection status and URLs. When all providers are connected, returns authenticated:true and empty pending[]. When credentials are missing, returns connect_url for the toolkit and per-install URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the two possible response states (authenticated vs missing credentials), which goes beyond the hints.
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 concise sentences with no wasted words. Information is front-loaded and easily parsed.
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 no output schema, the description covers both scenarios and key fields (authenticated, pending, connect_url). Reasonably complete for a simple status check tool, though response format details are implicit.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for zero params is 4; description adds no param info but is not needed.
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 returns connection status and URLs, with specific scenarios (all providers connected vs credentials missing). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'authenticate', which likely performs authentication actions.
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 implies use for checking connection status but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives or when not to use it. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.
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.