Returns the current toolkit state: installed MCPs, their connection status, the accounts connected to each one, and how many catalog tools each exposes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description additionally specifies what the returned state includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tools count), which adds context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the included content efficiently. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.
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 zero-parameter, informational tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers the return contents: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool will provide.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to describe. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details.
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+resource: 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates its scope (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version and the trading-focused bity_* tools.
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 when to use this tool (when you need an overview of the toolkit state) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. No comparison to show_version or connect is provided, leaving usage guidance somewhat implicit.
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.