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 describes what data is returned but does not mention critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior (implied by the cursor parameter but not explained). The description adds some context about data utility but misses key operational details.

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 and highly concise, consisting of only two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and primary use cases without unnecessary elaboration. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's role.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is moderately complete but has gaps. It explains the tool's purpose and data focus well, but without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like safety, performance, and return format. The description is adequate for basic understanding but insufficient for full operational context.

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 detailed documentation for all 10 parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already explains, such as clarifying parameter interactions or usage nuances. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description offers no additional parameter insights.

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 execution history') and resources ('actual trades (fills)'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_order_history or get_closed_pnl by focusing on execution-level data. It explicitly mentions key data elements like execution prices, quantities, fees, and timestamps, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 ('Essential for performance analysis and tax reporting') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_order_history or get_closed_pnl. It provides a general purpose but lacks specific guidance on tool selection among siblings, leaving the agent to infer based on the described data focus.

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