queryCardAssetRecords

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description discloses that the endpoint is paginated, describes the conditional requirement on `type`, and reveals that the MCP layer strips `uid` and `pan6` from responses. These are behavioral traits an agent must know and are not available in the annotations or schema.

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 about 130 words but every sentence carries unique information: purpose, auth, endpoint, filters, conditional requirement, privacy stripping, and agent-facing guidance. It is well structured with a front-loaded purpose.

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 an 11-parameter, no-output-schema read query, the description covers all essential invocation details: auth, endpoint, filters, conditional requirement, pagination, and response privacy transformations. Nothing an agent needs 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains filters for statusCode, pan4 (last 2/4 digits), merchName (fuzzy), type (auth/financial/refund), txnId/orderNo (exact), cardToken, and time range, plus the conditional rule binding `type` to txnId/orderNo.

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 states a specific action ('Query ... records') and resource ('Bybit Card asset (transaction) records'), and identifies the exact endpoint. It is clearly a read-only card transaction query and is distinguishable by resource from the many sibling tools.

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 gives clear context: it is for card asset transaction records on an authenticated account and requires Card read permission. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5, but the resource specificity makes usage obvious.

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