Bybit MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies this is a read-only operation ('Get'), which is consistent with the tool name, but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. The description adds some context about the tool's purpose in risk monitoring, but lacks details on how it behaves beyond the basic action.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a brief usage note. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and clear functionality.

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 has no input parameters and no output schema, the description provides a clear purpose and usage context. However, it lacks details on what the output includes beyond high-level categories, and with no annotations, it does not cover behavioral aspects like error handling or data freshness. This is adequate but has gaps in completeness for a tool that returns account health metrics.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate. A baseline score of 4 is given because the tool has no parameters, and the description adequately explains what the tool does without unnecessary parameter elaboration.

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 verb ('Get') and the resource ('comprehensive account information'), with specific details about what information is included (margin ratios, account status, upgrade status, overall account health metrics). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on account-level data rather than market data, positions, orders, or balances.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Essential for risk monitoring'), which implicitly suggests it's for assessing account health rather than trading or market analysis. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, such as get_position_info or get_wallet_balance for more specific data.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.