subscribeExecutionFast
Subscribe to authenticated fast execution streams to receive immediate order fill notifications from Bybit.
Instructions
订阅快速成交推送(需要鉴权)
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeoutMs | No | ||
| messageCount | No |
Subscribe to authenticated fast execution streams to receive immediate order fill notifications from Bybit.
订阅快速成交推送(需要鉴权)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeoutMs | No | ||
| messageCount | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already convey readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's main contribution is the explicit authentication requirement. It adds some behavioral context, but does not clarify what 'fast' means, how push messages are delivered, or what lifecycle the subscription follows.
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 a single focused sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the action and resource, though it may be too terse to fully serve its 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 a subscription tool with several subscribe-related siblings and no output schema, the description lacks essential context: when to use the 'fast' variant, what the returned push contains, and how the parameters affect behavior. The auth note is helpful but insufficient for confident tool selection.
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 should compensate by explaining timeoutMs and messageCount, but it does not mention either parameter. The parameter names and schema defaults are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema provides.
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 action ('subscribe') and the resource ('fast execution push'), and notes the authentication requirement. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely named sibling 'subscribeExecution', though the 'fast' qualifier hints at the difference.
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 subscribeExecution, subscribeOrder, or subscribePosition. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.