Bybit MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it explains what premium index data represents (funding rate basis), it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, or pagination behavior. For a data retrieval tool with 6 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states exactly what the tool does and for what instruments. The second sentence provides crucial context about what premium index data represents and its purpose. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 (6 parameters, financial data tool) and absence of both annotations and output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. While it explains what premium index data is and its purpose, it doesn't address behavioral aspects, response format, or error conditions. For a tool that retrieves time-series financial data with multiple filtering parameters, more context about what to expect would be helpful.

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 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, examples, enums, and constraints. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema - it only reinforces that this is for 'linear perpetuals' (implied by the category parameter). No additional parameter semantics or usage context beyond the schema are provided.

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 specific action ('Get premium index price candlestick data'), resource ('for linear perpetuals'), and purpose ('shows the funding rate basis and is used to calculate funding payments'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_index_price_kline' and 'get_mark_price_kline' by specifying it's for premium index data related to funding calculations.

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 context by mentioning it's for linear perpetuals and funding calculations, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_funding_rate_history' or 'get_index_price_kline'. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided, leaving usage context somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.

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