Retrieve your Bybit P2P order history with filtering by side, status, token, and time range. Access up to 180 days of past orders to review or manage transactions.
Get a list of P2P orders. Returns 90 days of orders by default. Orders are accessible up to 180 days in the past.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | Yes | ||
| side | No | ||
| size | Yes | ||
| status | No | ||
| endTime | No | ||
| tokenId | No | ||
| beginTime | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the operation's safety, so the description's added value is the retention-window behavior: default 90 days and accessible up to 180 days. That is useful but modest; it does not mention pagination behavior, filter constraints, or how the beginTime/endTime range interacts with the default window. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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?
Two tight sentences with the core action first and the retention constraint immediately after. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler or restatement.
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 seven params, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no mention of parameter format or filtering semantics, the description is not sufficient for reliable invocation. The P2P domain and retention window are helpful but leave major gaps around required params, status/side meanings, and time-format expectations.
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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining seven parameters, including required page and size. It only establishes the domain (P2P orders) and time-window context; side, status, tokenId, beginTime, and endTime remain semantically unexplained. This is below the minimum viable level for effective invocation.
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 identifies the specific verb and resource: 'Get a list of P2P orders', which is more specific than the generic getOrderList/QueryOrderByPage siblings. It adds a concrete scope (90-day default, 180-day max) that clarifies the resource boundaries. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling order-list tools, so it misses the top score.
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 conveys when data is available (90 days default, up to 180 days) and thereby implies when the tool is insufficient for older orders. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives like getOrderList, getPendingOrders, or getOrderHistory. This is adequate context but not strong routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.