getServerTime

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already signal readOnlyHint=true, and the description goes beyond that by stating no authentication is required, noting possible increased latency during extreme volatility, and explaining the returned fields. It adds useful behavioral context without contradicting the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 well-organized with clear sections and front-loaded purpose, but it repeats the same guidance in the 'Agent hint' section: clock synchronization and the market-data exclusion with getTickers/getMarketKline. This redundancy prevents it from being fully concise.

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 zero-parameter, read-only utility endpoint with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, return values, authentication requirements, latency behavior, an error-code context, and explicit alternative tools. Nothing necessary for an agent to call it correctly 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?

The input schema has zero properties and 100% coverage vacuously, so there are no parameters needing explanation. The description correctly adds no parameter-specific semantics, and the baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Query Bybit server time', and clearly states the return precision (seconds and nanoseconds). It also distinguishes itself from market-data endpoints by explicitly naming getTickers and getMarketKline as the alternatives, so an agent can identify it as the clock-synchronization utility even among hundreds of siblings.

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 explicitly lists when to use the endpoint: synchronizing the local clock before authenticated requests and verifying timestamp alignment to avoid error code 10002. It also states when not to use it (market data) and names the correct alternatives. The agent hint adds a concrete trigger: call it before placing orders if the local clock may be out of sync.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.