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 minimal insight. It implies a read operation but does not cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool with multiple 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 extremely concise with a single phrase, 'Get long/short ratio data,' which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core function without unnecessary elaboration, though this brevity contributes to gaps in 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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It fails to explain return values, usage context, or behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and invoke the tool effectively in a financial data 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%, providing detailed documentation for all parameters, including enums and defaults. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the high coverage justifies a baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately compensates for the lack of param details in the description.

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 long/short ratio data' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the type of data but lacks a clear verb-resource pairing or differentiation from sibling tools like get_open_interest or get_position_info, which might relate to similar financial metrics.

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 comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent with no usage instructions beyond the basic function implied by the name.

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