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 states the tool retrieves information (implying read-only behavior) but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it returns real-time or cached data. For a financial tool with potential high-stakes use, this lack of detail is a significant gap, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds context in the second. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying the tool's function and use case without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 6 parameters, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the two sentences.

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 of 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and high-level use but lacks details on behavioral traits, return format, or error handling. For a tool in a trading environment with siblings like get_closed_pnl, more guidance on differentiation would improve completeness.

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 clear documentation for all 6 parameters, including enums and examples. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying filtering by category and symbol, which is already covered in the schema. This meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without additional value from 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 detailed position information') and resources ('trading positions'), listing key data points like size, value, PnL, and margin. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_account_info or get_wallet_balance by focusing on active trading positions rather than account balances or historical data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_closed_pnl, which might overlap in PnL reporting.

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 implies usage for 'portfolio monitoring and risk management,' suggesting when to use this tool in a trading context. It doesn't provide explicit alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use get_closed_pnl for historical PnL versus this tool for current positions. The guidance is contextual but lacks specificity on tool selection among siblings.

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