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 effectively describes the return format (OHLCV data) and default time behavior, but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or potential errors. For a data retrieval tool with no annotations, 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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose and return format, while the second explains the default time behavior. There's zero wasted language and it's front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

For a 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does and returns. However, it lacks details about authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, and pagination behavior that would be helpful for a financial data retrieval tool. The schema handles parameter documentation well, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the missing behavioral context.

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 already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema - it mentions time range defaults but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Get historical candlestick/OHLC data') and resource ('for technical analysis'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_tickers (current prices) or get_recent_trades (raw trades). It explicitly mentions the return data structure (open, high, low, close prices and volume), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 some implied usage context by mentioning 'technical analysis' and the default behavior when no time range is specified. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_mark_price_kline or get_index_price_kline, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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