Retrieve active liquidity mining positions for the current Bybit user. Get real-time quote and base amounts, and filter results by base coin or product ID.
Query active Liquidity Mining positions for the current user.
Amount fields (quoteAmount, baseAmount, etc.) are computed dynamically based on real-time prices.
Rate Limit: 10 req/s (UID)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| baseCoin | No | ||
| productId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the rate limit of 10 req/s and the fact that amount fields like quoteAmount and baseAmount are dynamically computed from real-time prices. This helps the agent anticipate changing values and API limits.
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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then dynamic pricing behavior, then rate limit. Every sentence adds useful information without unnecessary elaboration. The bold formatting for the rate limit makes it easy to spot.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple read-only query with no required parameters, but it leaves gaps around how baseCoin and productId should be used and what the full return structure looks like. The dynamic-amount note and rate limit are helpful, but a more complete description would clarify whether these parameters filter the positions or are required for certain use cases.
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 input schema has two string parameters, baseCoin and productId, with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what these parameters mean, whether they are filters, or how they affect the result. Since the schema itself provides no descriptions, the agent gets no guidance on parameter usage.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Query active Liquidity Mining positions for the current user.' It names the scope ('active', 'current user') and distinguishes the tool from siblings like getLiquidityMiningOrders, getLiquidityMiningProducts, and getLiquidityMiningYieldRecords by focusing on positions.
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 implies when to use the tool (when active liquidity mining positions are needed), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for orders, products, or yield records. The context is clear but the routing to alternatives is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.