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 but offers no information beyond the basic action. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or the format of returned data. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise with a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects like data retrieval limits, error handling, or output format, nor does it provide usage context. For a historical data query tool, this leaves critical gaps in understanding how to effectively invoke and interpret results.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it does not explain relationships between parameters like 'startTime' and 'endTime' or clarify the 'category' enum). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description fails to compensate with any extra insights.

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 'Get funding rate history' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. While it indicates the action ('Get') and resource ('funding rate history'), it lacks specificity about scope or differentiation from sibling tools like 'get_kline' or 'get_mark_price_kline' that might also retrieve historical data. This makes it vague and minimally informative beyond the name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and it fails to differentiate from sibling tools that might serve similar purposes (e.g., other historical data tools). This leaves the agent without clear direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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