Bybit MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get open interest data' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (though cursor parameter hints at it), error conditions, or what format the data returns. For a financial data tool with 7 parameters, 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 maximally concise at just three words with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary elaboration. For its limited content, the structure is perfectly efficient.

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 (7 parameters, financial data tool), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what open interest data represents, what format it returns, or how to interpret results. The agent would need to infer much from parameter names alone, which is inadequate for proper tool invocation.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the input schema, which has 100% description coverage with clear parameter documentation including enums, defaults, and constraints. The baseline score of 3 reflects that the schema does all the work - the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given complete 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 'Get open interest data' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_open_interest'. It specifies the resource ('open interest data') but lacks a clear verb beyond 'get' and doesn't distinguish this tool from its many siblings that also retrieve various types of financial data. The purpose is identifiable but overly generic.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 21 sibling tools on the server (including get_kline, get_tickers, get_position_info, etc.), there's no indication of what makes open interest data distinct or when an agent should prefer this tool over others for related financial metrics. No context, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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