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 of behavioral disclosure. The description explains what index price is and its purpose, but doesn't disclose key behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output format looks like (e.g., array of candlesticks with OHLCV data). For a data retrieval tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences. The first sentence directly states the tool's purpose, and the second provides helpful context about index price. There's no wasted text, and the information is front-loaded. It could potentially be more structured with explicit usage guidance, but it's efficient as is.

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 complexity (6 parameters, financial data tool) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains what index price is but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a tool that retrieves time-series financial data with multiple parameters, more context about how to interpret and use the results would be valuable.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly with descriptions, enums, examples, and constraints. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 index price candlestick data for derivatives.' It specifies the resource (index price candlestick data) and domain (derivatives). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_kline' or 'get_mark_price_kline', which likely retrieve different types of price data. The explanation of index price as 'fair value price based on major spot exchanges' is helpful but doesn't fully differentiate the tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that index price is 'used as reference for mark price calculation,' which hints at a use case, but doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'get_kline' (likely for spot prices) or 'get_mark_price_kline' (for mark prices). There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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