bybit_method_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently indicates that the tool returns documentation content (request parameters, response formats, usage examples, error handling) rather than performing an actual API call. This is sufficient behavioral disclosure for a read-only lookup tool.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Query') and resource ('detailed usage information'), with supporting detail on what is included. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does and what it returns (technical documentation). It could mention that method names come from the Bybit SDK or how to discover them via sibling tools, but that's not essential for this tool's core function.

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 100% (the 'method' parameter is described as 'The specific method name to query'). The description repeats this in prose ('specific API methods') but adds no further semantic detail. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('detailed usage information for specific API methods in Bybit Exchange SDK'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bybit_methods by focusing on 'detail' for a specific method rather than listing methods, which is evident from both the name and description.

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 usage when one needs detailed technical documentation for a specific Bybit API method, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like bybit_methods to first discover available methods. There is no exclusions or alternative guidance, so it relies on context.

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