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 this is for 'real-time' data and mentions what information is included, but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness guarantees, error conditions, or response format. For a financial data tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences that each serve a clear purpose: the first states what the tool does, the second provides usage guidance. There's no wasted language, though it could be slightly more specific about differentiation from sibling tools.

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 (financial data tool with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and provides some usage context, but lacks important behavioral information that would be crucial for an AI agent to use this tool effectively in production. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally mention what the return structure looks like.

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 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'trading symbols' which relates to the 'symbol' parameter, but provides no additional syntax, format, or usage guidance for parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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: 'Get real-time ticker information including current prices, 24h volume, and price changes for trading symbols.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('ticker information') with concrete data fields. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_instruments_info' or 'get_recent_trades' which might provide overlapping market 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?

The description provides some usage context: 'Use this to get current market data for any cryptocurrency pair.' This implies when to use it (for real-time ticker data) but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools. The guidance is helpful but incomplete for tool selection.

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