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 effectively indicates this is a read operation ('Get') and describes the scope of returned data, but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the data is real-time vs cached. The description adds value by specifying what balance components are included, but leaves gaps in operational 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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose and scope, while the second provides valuable context about its importance. There's zero wasted language or redundancy, and the information is front-loaded effectively.

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?

For a read operation with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and context but lacks completeness. Without annotations covering behavioral aspects and no output schema to describe return values, the description should ideally address more operational details like response format, authentication needs, or data freshness. The current description is functional but leaves the agent to infer important implementation details.

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 fully documents both parameters with descriptions, enums, examples, and requirements. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, nor does it explain parameter interactions or provide usage examples. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 detailed wallet balance information') and resource ('wallet'), with explicit details about what information is included ('available balance, locked balance, and total equity across different account types'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_single_coin_balance' by emphasizing comprehensive balance data across account types rather than single-coin focus.

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 usage ('Essential for portfolio monitoring and risk management'), which helps identify appropriate scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_single_coin_balance' or 'get_account_info', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites for usage.

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