Bybit MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool retrieves 'historical' data, implying it's a read-only operation, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or the format/structure of returned data. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides usage context. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It clarifies the tool's purpose and usage context but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and differentiation from siblings. With no output schema, the description should ideally hint at return values, but it doesn't, leaving gaps in completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no specific parameter information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'category' options or 'cursor' usage). However, it implicitly reinforces that parameters filter 'closed positions' data, which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Get historical profit and loss data for closed positions.' It specifies both the verb ('Get') and resource ('historical profit and loss data for closed positions'), making it unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_trade_history' or 'get_order_history' which might also involve historical data.

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 implied usage guidance by stating it's 'Useful for performance analysis and tax reporting,' which suggests appropriate contexts. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vs. 'get_trade_history' or 'get_order_history'), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is helpful but incomplete.

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