Fetch candlestick (K-line) data for a Bybit symbol and interval, with optional start/end timestamps and limit, to analyze price movement.
Get candlestick data (K-line)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | The end timestamp (ms) | |
| limit | No | Limit for data points, max 1000 | |
| start | No | The start timestamp (ms) | |
| symbol | Yes | ||
| category | Yes | ||
| interval | Yes | Kline interval: 1,3,5,15,30,60,120,240,360,720,D,M,W |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing beyond purpose: no pagination behavior, no default time window, no ordering, no rate limits, no statement that it is a read-only query. The single implication that 'Get' is a read is the only behavioral signal.
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 single short phrase is front-loaded and wastes no words, but at this length it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. Brevity is not earning its place because required context is simply absent.
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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it does not clarify the relationship between start/end and interval, what the returned candlestick rows contain, or defaults when timestamps are omitted. Core calling context is missing.
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 67%: interval and the start/end/limit fields are documented in the schema, but 'symbol' and 'category' have no descriptions anywhere. The description adds zero parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states, so it fails to compensate for the uncovered parameters.
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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('candlestick data (K-line)'), and the parenthetical alias makes the intent unambiguous. It does not need to distinguish itself from siblings like get_tickers or get_orderbook since those are different resources, but it offers no scoping detail (which market, which exchange).
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites or context for calling it. An agent must infer entirely from the name and schema that this is the historical/current OHLC series tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.