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. While it mentions the tool's purpose and usage, it fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, whether it's a read-only operation, what 'recently closed' means, or how results are structured. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 with three sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place by explaining what the tool does and when to use it, though the third sentence slightly repeats the first. There is minimal waste, but it could be slightly more streamlined.

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 (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, error handling, and the structure of returned data. For a tool with this many parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context to compensate.

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 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters or providing usage examples. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('both open (pending) and recently closed orders'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying its unique scope of monitoring order status and trading activity. It explicitly mentions checking if orders are filled, cancelled, or still pending, which sets it apart from tools like get_order_history or get_closed_pnl.

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 ('Essential for monitoring order status and trading activity'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It implies usage for checking order statuses, but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like get_order_history.

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