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. It only states the action ('get') without any details on permissions required, rate limits, response format, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this minimal description fails to provide necessary behavioral context.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence 'Get risk limit information', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, but for this dimension alone, it's efficiently structured.

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 tool's complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'risk limit information' entails (e.g., numerical limits, thresholds), how results are returned, or tie parameters to the output. With no output schema and minimal description, it leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'category' as product type with enum values, 'symbol' as symbol name). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 risk limit information' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_risk_limit'. It specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'risk limit information', but lacks specificity about what risk limits are (e.g., trading limits, margin requirements) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like get_position_info or get_account_info that might provide related risk data.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., for trading decisions, risk assessment), or how it differs from sibling tools like get_position_info or get_account_info that might include risk-related data. This leaves the agent with no basis for selection.

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