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. It states it 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'depth' entails (e.g., bid/ask levels). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'order book depth' returns (e.g., bid/ask arrays, timestamps) or behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 fully documents parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'symbol' is for trading, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics.

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 action ('Get order book depth') and resource ('for a trading symbol'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_recent_trades' or 'get_tickers' that also provide market data, missing explicit distinction.

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. With siblings like 'get_recent_trades' and 'get_tickers' that offer different market data, the description lacks context for choosing this specific tool, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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