Retrieve the current time from Bybit servers for synchronization.
Get Bybit server time.
Returns: Server time information.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_server_time"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral details like whether authentication is required, the format of the returned time, or any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks transparency beyond the basic operation.
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 brief with two sentences, front-loading the purpose. It is concise and directly addresses the tool's function, though it could be slightly more structured with a section for returns.
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 tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description should explain the return format. It only says 'Server time information,' which is vague. The description does not specify whether the time is a Unix timestamp, ISO string, or other format, making it incomplete.
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 tool has 0 parameters, and per the rubric, the baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but since there are no parameters, it is adequate.
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 Bybit server time.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('server time'), which distinguishes it from other tools that retrieve different data (e.g., account balance, instruments).
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as timing or context. The description only states what the tool does, without any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.