Retrieve open position information from Bybit for linear, inverse, or option categories, filtered by symbol or settle coin, to monitor exposure and manage trades.
Get position information
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | No | ||
| category | Yes | ||
| settleCoin | No |
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' weakly implies a read, but nothing is said about auth requirements, scope, or what data is returned for positions.
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 clause is technically concise, but this is under-specification rather than economical structure — there is no substantive content to be front-loaded.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is far too thin for a 3-parameter query tool on positions. An agent cannot determine filters, defaults, or return shape from this definition.
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 0% with 3 parameters, one enum (category) and one required. The description adds no meaning about symbol, category, or settleCoin beyond what their bare names suggest, leaving the enum semantics and filtering behavior undocumented.
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 'Get position information' essentially restates the tool name get_positions with no added specificity. It does not distinguish this tool from any sibling (get_tickers, get_account_info, get_orderbook) or clarify what 'position information' contains.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_account_info or get_wallet_balance, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.