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 adds useful context about the purpose of mark price (liquidation and PnL calculations) and contract availability, but it does not cover other behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or the format of returned data. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 sized and front-loaded, consisting of two concise sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose and key constraints. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or unnecessary details, making it efficient and easy to understand.

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 moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains the tool's purpose and contract limitations well, but without annotations or an output schema, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like data format, error handling, or usage limits. This makes it adequate but not fully comprehensive for an agent to use confidently.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing detailed documentation for all 6 parameters (e.g., category, symbol, interval). The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already explains, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating further. No parameters are explicitly mentioned 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get mark price candlestick data') and resource ('for derivatives trading'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_kline' (likely regular price data) and 'get_index_price_kline' by specifying 'mark price' used for liquidation and PnL calculations. It explicitly mentions the contract types it supports ('linear and inverse perpetual contracts only'), making the scope 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 clear context for when to use this tool by explaining that mark price is for liquidation and PnL calculations, and it specifies the available contract types ('linear and inverse perpetual contracts only'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'get_kline' for regular price data or 'get_index_price_kline'), which prevents a perfect score.

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