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. It fails to describe any traits such as read-only status, potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. The description is too vague to inform the agent about how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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 concise with a single sentence, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks front-loaded detail that could clarify the tool's scope or usage, making it minimally structured but not effectively so.

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 of financial data tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'insurance fund data' entails, how results are returned, or any behavioral aspects, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's full context and usage.

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%, with the single parameter 'coin' well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining why the coin parameter is optional or its impact on the query. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 insurance fund data' restates the tool name 'get_insurance' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the resource ('insurance fund data') but lacks a clear verb beyond 'get' and does not differentiate from siblings like 'get_wallet_balance' or 'get_account_info' in terms of what specific data is retrieved.

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. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on its appropriate application among the many sibling tools for financial data retrieval.

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