Bybit MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the cursor parameter), error conditions, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a tool name that already hints at the function, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail needed for other dimensions.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, many similar siblings), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'trading instruments information' includes, how results are structured, or when to use it over other tools. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

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 the schema fully documents all 5 parameters with descriptions, enums, and constraints. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, not even clarifying relationships between parameters (e.g., if symbol and baseCoin are mutually exclusive). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 trading instruments information' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('trading instruments information'), but it's vague about what specific information is retrieved. It doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get_tickers' or 'get_order_book' that also provide trading-related information, leaving ambiguity about scope.

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. With many sibling tools related to trading data (e.g., get_tickers, get_order_book, get_position_info), the description offers no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on parameter names alone.

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