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. While it mentions the tool provides 'additional details like transferable amounts and account relationships', it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects such as whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the balance information returns. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 just two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose and key differentiators, while the second sentence provides important comparative context. 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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains the tool's purpose and differentiators well, but doesn't address behavioral aspects, return format, or error handling. For a balance query tool with multiple optional parameters affecting institutional accounts and bonus calculations, more behavioral context 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly with descriptions, enums, examples, and required status. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but with complete schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get balance information') and resources ('specific coin'), and explicitly differentiates it from sibling tools by mentioning it's 'More detailed than wallet balance for single coin queries' and listing additional details like 'transferable amounts and account relationships'.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('for single coin queries' and 'more detailed than wallet balance'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives beyond the general comparison to 'wallet balance'. It implies usage scenarios without providing explicit exclusions.

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