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 of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool provides 'comprehensive order history' and is 'useful for trade analysis,' it lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior (implied by 'cursor' parameter but not explained), or what happens with large datasets. For a tool with 11 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently state the tool's purpose and utility. There's no wasted language, and it avoids redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from usage context, preventing a perfect score.

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 (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or output format, which are crucial for a tool of this scope. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context on what to expect from the tool's operation and results.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond the general scope of 'order history,' so it doesn't enhance understanding of individual parameters. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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: 'Get comprehensive order history with detailed information about past orders including execution details, timestamps, and status changes.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('order history') with some detail about what information is included. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'get_open_closed_orders' or 'get_trade_history', which prevents a perfect score.

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 minimal usage guidance with 'Useful for trade analysis and record keeping,' which gives some context but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_open_closed_orders' or 'get_trade_history.' There's no explicit mention of when not to use it or clear alternatives, leaving significant gaps in guidance.

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