Bybit MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but some overlap exists. For example, 'place_order' and 'place_order_with_trailing_stop' are clearly related, and 'set_trading_stop' might overlap with trailing stop calculations. However, descriptions help clarify differences, preventing major confusion.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, such as 'get_orderbook', 'set_leverage', and 'calculate_position_size'. There are no deviations in naming conventions, making the set predictable and readable.
Tool Count4/5
With 21 tools, the count is slightly high but reasonable for a comprehensive trading server. It covers key areas like orders, positions, and risk management without being overly bloated, though it borders on the heavy side.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides complete coverage for trading operations, including order placement, cancellation, position management, risk calculations, and account information. No obvious gaps exist; agents can handle full trading workflows without dead ends.
Average 2.4/5 across 21 of 21 tools scored. Lowest: 1.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Cancel order' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't reveal critical traits: whether cancellation is reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects positions or balances, rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly concise at two words, leading to under-specification rather than efficiency. It lacks front-loaded critical information (e.g., domain, constraints) and doesn't earn its place with useful details. While brief, it fails to communicate essential context, making it ineffective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a destructive mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, usage context, or output expectations, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly in a trading environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all 5 parameters documented in the schema (e.g., 'category', 'symbol', 'orderId'). The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Cancel order' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what type of order (trading order in a financial context) or distinguish it from siblings like 'place_order' or 'get_open_orders'. The verb 'cancel' is clear, but the resource 'order' lacks context about the domain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing order), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like 'place_order' (for creation) or 'get_open_orders' (for listing). The description offers no contextual cues for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or what format the balance information comes in. This is inadequate for a financial data tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just three words, this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide necessary context about what a 'wallet balance' entails in this trading system, making it inefficient for agent understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a financial tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what type of balance is returned (e.g., available balance, total balance, in what currency), doesn't mention authentication requirements, and provides no behavioral context despite the tool's potential complexity in a trading environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('accountType' and 'coin') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for adequate coverage without adding value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get wallet balance' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what resource is being retrieved (e.g., cryptocurrency wallet balance) or distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_positions' or 'get_tickers' that might also provide financial data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction despite having multiple sibling tools in the trading/financial domain.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but fails completely. 'Execute order' implies a potentially destructive financial transaction but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this commits real funds, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns confirmation details, or what happens on failure. For a 22-parameter trading tool, this is dangerously inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just two words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to front-load essential information and doesn't earn its place - it provides no value beyond the tool name itself. For a complex trading tool, this brevity is harmful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex trading order placement tool with 22 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond the obvious, provides no behavioral context, no usage guidance, and no information about return values or error conditions. This leaves the agent dangerously uninformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 22 parameters thoroughly. The description adds zero parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Execute order' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'place_order' without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what type of order (trading order), what resource is affected (trading positions), or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'place_order_with_trailing_stop' or 'cancel_order'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or differentiate from related tools like 'place_order_with_trailing_stop' for trailing stop orders or 'validate_order_quantity' for validation before execution.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. 'Set margin mode' implies a configuration change but doesn't indicate whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or what happens on success/failure. For a 5-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is dangerously inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just three words, this represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide any of the necessary context that would help an agent understand and use the tool correctly. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the single 'sentence' doesn't earn its place by adding value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond the name, provides no behavioral context, and offers no guidance on usage. For a financial trading tool that likely modifies account/trading settings, this level of documentation is insufficient and potentially dangerous.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters with reasonable clarity. The description adds zero additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set margin mode' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what 'margin mode' refers to (e.g., isolated vs. cross margin, leverage settings) or what resource is being modified. While the verb 'set' is clear, the object 'margin mode' is too vague without the parameter context from the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or relationships to sibling tools like 'set_leverage' or 'set_trading_stop'. An agent would have no indication of when this operation is needed versus other configuration tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. 'Set trading stop' implies a write/mutation operation, but there's no information about permissions required, whether it modifies existing stops or creates new ones, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves the agent completely in the dark about the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just three words, this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to front-load critical information—it doesn't state what the tool actually does beyond the obvious. Every word should earn its place, but here the words provide almost no value beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a trading stop tool (6 parameters, mutation operation, financial implications) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, or behavioral nuances. For a tool that could significantly impact trading positions, this lack of context is dangerous.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters—it doesn't explain relationships between them (e.g., that 'takeProfit', 'stopLoss', and 'trailingStop' are mutually exclusive options) or provide usage examples. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation solely from the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set trading stop' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without elaboration. It doesn't specify what type of trading stop (take profit, stop loss, trailing stop) or what resource (position, order) it affects. While it implies configuration of trading stops, it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'calculate_trailing_stop' or 'place_order_with_trailing_stop'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an open position), context (e.g., for risk management), or comparison to sibling tools like 'set_leverage' or 'place_order_with_trailing_stop'. The agent receives no help in selecting this tool appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to add any context. It doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or historical data, or what the output format might be. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Get position information', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While it's under-specified, it earns a high score for conciseness as every word serves the core purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by sibling tools in a trading context, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'position information' entails, how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects, making it inadequate for an AI agent to use effectively without guesswork.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters ('category' and 'symbol'). Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the schema's information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get position information' restates the tool name 'get_positions' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'position information' but lacks specificity about what kind of information (e.g., open positions, all positions, or specific details) and doesn't distinguish it from siblings like 'get_open_orders' or 'get_wallet_balance' that might also retrieve trading-related data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., for trading analysis or risk management), or exclusions, leaving the agent with no hints about appropriate scenarios compared to sibling tools like 'get_open_orders' or 'get_wallet_balance'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get API key information' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the information returns (e.g., JSON details vs. simple status), or any rate limits or side effects. For a tool that likely handles sensitive credentials, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Get API key information')—just three words. While this avoids waste, it's arguably under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks the front-loaded detail needed for clarity, such as specifying what 'information' entails. The structure is minimal but fails to earn its place by adding sufficient value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of API key management in a trading context, the description is incomplete. No annotations exist to cover behavioral aspects, and there's no output schema to explain return values. The description doesn't address what information is retrieved, how it's formatted, or security implications. For a tool that could involve sensitive data, this leaves critical gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain, though a perfect 5 would require the description to explicitly note the lack of parameters, which it doesn't do.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get API key information' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't explain what kind of information is retrieved (e.g., permissions, creation date, usage limits) or distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_access_key' or 'get_secret_key'. While it uses a clear verb ('Get'), it lacks the resource specificity needed for a higher score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication requirements), appropriate contexts (e.g., checking key status before trading), or exclusions (e.g., not for creating or modifying keys). With sibling tools like 'get_access_key' and 'get_secret_key' present, this omission is particularly problematic for agent decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get ticker information' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this is a real-time or cached query, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens on errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, making it front-loaded and waste-free. However, this brevity borders on under-specification, as it lacks necessary detail for clarity and completeness, slightly reducing its effectiveness despite the efficient structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of financial data tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'ticker information' includes, how results are formatted, or any behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter input.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond what the input schema provides. With schema description coverage at 100%, the schema already documents both parameters ('category' and 'symbol') adequately. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the description doesn't need to compensate but also doesn't enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get ticker information' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_tickers' with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'ticker information', but lacks specificity about what ticker information entails (e.g., price, volume, bid/ask) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_instruments_info' or 'get_orderbook', which may provide overlapping or related data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and with siblings like 'get_instruments_info' and 'get_orderbook' that might serve similar purposes, this omission leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get open orders' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't clarify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the output takes. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified. While it's not verbose or repetitive, it fails to provide essential context that would help an agent understand and use the tool effectively. The single phrase doesn't represent appropriate conciseness for a tool with 6 parameters and multiple sibling alternatives.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools in a trading context, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes an 'open order' versus historical orders, doesn't mention authentication requirements for accessing trading data, and provides no context about the trading platform or exchange this interacts with. The description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description. The description doesn't compensate for any gaps because there are none in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get open orders' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It doesn't specify what type of orders (trading orders), from what system (exchange/trading platform), or what 'open' means in this context. While the name suggests it retrieves active trading orders, the description adds no meaningful clarification beyond the name itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_order_history' and 'cancel_order' available, there's no indication whether this tool retrieves only currently active orders while 'get_order_history' retrieves completed/canceled ones, or whether this should be used before attempting to cancel orders. No prerequisites or context for usage are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get order history' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (the limit parameter suggests pagination but isn't explained), or what happens when no orders match criteria. For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, according to the scoring framework, 'Process' received a 2 for being under-specified, but this description is similarly minimal. However, it does front-load the core purpose without wasted words, earning maximum points for conciseness despite lacking substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (9 parameters, trading domain), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, authentication requirements, error conditions, or how it differs from sibling order-related tools. For a tool that retrieves historical trading data with multiple filtering options, this minimal description leaves too many contextual gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description, which applies here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get order history' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what 'order history' means in this context (e.g., historical orders vs. recent orders, which user's orders, what time range). While the verb 'Get' is clear, the resource 'order history' is vague without distinguishing from sibling tools like get_open_orders or get_tickers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools related to orders (get_open_orders, cancel_order, place_order) and trading data (get_tickers, get_orderbook), but the description offers no context about when this specific order history retrieval is appropriate versus those other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'place order' which implies a write/mutation operation, but fails to disclose critical traits like authentication needs, rate limits, potential for financial loss, or what happens on execution (e.g., order confirmation). This is a significant gap for a trading tool with financial implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could be slightly more structured by hinting at the tool's complexity given the many parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex trading tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., risks, auth), output expectations, or how it differs from siblings. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool safely and effectively in a financial trading environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that 'trailingStop' is a key feature, but it doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., how 'activePrice' relates to 'trailingStop') or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Place order with trailing stop loss' clearly states the action (place order) and key feature (trailing stop loss), but it's vague about what type of order is being placed and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'place_order' or 'set_trading_stop'. It specifies the trailing stop mechanism but lacks detail on the broader order context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'place_order' (without trailing stop) or 'set_trading_stop' (which might modify existing orders). The description implies usage for orders with trailing stops but offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on parameter names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states it 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the output format might be. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single phrase 'Get exchange information', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While it may be under-specified, it earns full marks for brevity and lack of redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't compensate for the lack of structured data by explaining what information is returned, how to interpret results, or behavioral context. For a data retrieval tool with filtering parameters, this leaves the agent with insufficient guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain how parameters interact (e.g., filtering by category and symbol together), provide examples, or clarify semantics like what 'status' or 'baseCoin' represent in context. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get exchange information' states the general purpose (retrieving data) but is vague about what specific information is retrieved. It doesn't specify what 'exchange information' includes (instrument details, specifications, etc.) or differentiate from sibling tools like get_tickers or get_orderbook that also retrieve exchange data. The verb 'get' is generic and the resource 'exchange information' is broad.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description doesn't mention context like needing instrument specifications, filtering by category/symbol, or comparing to siblings such as get_tickers (for price data) or get_orderbook (for market depth). There's no indication of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or what happens with invalid parameters. The description adds no context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., candlestick array format), error handling, or typical use cases. The agent lacks context to use this effectively beyond parameter passing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain K-line structure or how parameters interact). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get K-line (candlestick) data' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('K-line data'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from siblings like get_tickers or get_orderbook. It lacks specificity about what exactly is retrieved (e.g., historical price data).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like get_tickers (real-time prices) or get_orderbook (order depth). The description offers no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from parameter names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'risk management principles' but fails to specify critical traits like whether this is a read-only calculation, if it modifies any state, error handling, or performance considerations. This is inadequate for a tool with 7 parameters and potential financial implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a financial calculation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the output format, error conditions, or how results should be interpreted, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for all 7 parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters (e.g., how 'leverage' affects 'position size') or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Calculate optimal position size based on risk management principles,' which specifies the action (calculate) and resource (position size) with a rationale (risk management). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'validate_order_quantity' or 'place_order,' which might also involve position sizing aspects, leaving some ambiguity about uniqueness.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing market data or account information, and doesn't mention sibling tools like 'validate_order_quantity' for validation or 'place_order' for execution, leaving the agent without clear usage boundaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool calculates values but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only computation (likely) or if it modifies any state (e.g., placing orders). It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or output format, which are critical for a tool with 9 parameters in a trading context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly states what the tool does ('Calculate trailing stop loss') and adds key features ('with breakeven and profit protection') concisely, making every word count.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (9 parameters in trading), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the calculation logic, return values, or how parameters like 'side' affect the result. For a tool that likely outputs critical trading data, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by hinting at 'breakeven and profit protection,' which relates to optional parameters like 'breakevenTrigger' and 'profitProtectionTrigger.' However, it doesn't explain how these parameters interact or provide examples, so it meets the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Calculate trailing stop loss with breakeven and profit protection.' It specifies the verb ('calculate') and the resource ('trailing stop loss'), and mentions additional features. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'place_order_with_trailing_stop' or 'set_trading_stop', which prevents a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'set_trading_stop' (which might set stops) or 'place_order_with_trailing_stop' (which might combine order placement with stop calculation), leaving the agent with no context for tool selection. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions detecting position mode and getting a recommendation, but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what happens if no positions exist, or any rate limits. For a tool with potential trading implications, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('detect current position mode') and adds the secondary benefit ('get recommended positionIdx'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of position mode detection in trading contexts, the description is incomplete. No annotations exist to clarify safety or behavior, and there's no output schema to explain the return values (e.g., what 'positionIdx' means or the format of the detection result). This leaves critical gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear docs for 'category' and 'symbol'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples for 'category' values or clarification on 'positionIdx'. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Detect current position mode (one-way vs hedge) and get recommended positionIdx for orders'. It specifies the verb ('detect'), the resource ('position mode'), and the additional output ('recommended positionIdx'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_positions' or 'set_margin_mode', which might also relate to position management.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an active position or specific account settings, nor does it compare to siblings like 'get_positions' for checking positions or 'set_margin_mode' for configuring modes. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states what the tool does without mentioning critical details like rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a data retrieval tool in a trading context, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of financial data retrieval and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what orderbook data includes (e.g., bids/asks), how results are structured, or any limitations like real-time vs. delayed data, making it incomplete for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all three parameters (category, symbol, limit). The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining category options (spot, linear, inverse) or symbol format conventions, but the schema provides adequate baseline information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'orderbook data for a specific symbol', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like get_tickers or get_kline, which also retrieve market data but for different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_tickers (for price data) or get_kline (for historical candlestick data). It also doesn't mention prerequisites such as needing a valid symbol or category, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Set leverage' implies a configuration/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, affects open positions, or what happens on success/failure. For a financial trading tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a straightforward purpose and well-documented schema. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information about the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a financial trading configuration tool with 4 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, side effects, or how it interacts with other trading operations. The combination of mutation nature and financial context demands more comprehensive documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples beyond what's in schema descriptions, or clarify edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set leverage') and target resource ('for a specific symbol'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_margin_mode' or 'set_trading_stop' which are also configuration tools, so it doesn't achieve full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or relationship to sibling tools like 'set_margin_mode' or 'set_trading_stop' that might be used in similar trading configuration contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions validation and formatting but lacks details on what happens during validation (e.g., error messages, rule checks), whether it's read-only or has side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by clearly stating the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a validation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., validated quantity, error details), behavioral traits, or usage context, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'targetAmount' relates to validation or formatting). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Validate order quantity against Bybit trading rules and get properly formatted quantity.' It specifies the action (validate), the resource (order quantity), and the context (Bybit trading rules). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'place_order' or 'calculate_position_size' that might also involve quantity handling, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., before placing an order), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'calculate_position_size' or 'place_order', leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves an access key from environment variables, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., if the key is missing), security implications, or what the returned value looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal. It states what the tool does but lacks completeness for effective use, such as explaining the return format, error conditions, or how it integrates with sibling tools in a trading context. This leaves gaps in understanding its role within the server.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the input. The description adds no parameter information, but since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as no compensation is needed for missing details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('access key'), specifying it retrieves from 'environment variables'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_api_key_information' or 'get_secret_key' by indicating the source, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_secret_key' which might also fetch from environment variables.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_api_key_information' or 'get_secret_key'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., environment setup) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this requires specific permissions, has side effects, involves rate limits, or what the return format looks like, which is a significant gap for a tool accessing sensitive data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of accessing sensitive environment variables, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should explain what the secret key is used for, security implications, or return format, but it only provides a basic action statement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the inputs. The description adds no parameter information, but with no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as there's nothing to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('secret key from environment variables'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_access_key' or 'get_api_key_information', which would require specifying what type of key or from which specific environment, so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_access_key' or 'get_api_key_information'. It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-bybit-node MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kondisettyravi/mcp-bybit-node/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kondisettyravi/mcp-bybit-node)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-bybit-node MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kondisettyravi/mcp-bybit-node/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kondisettyravi/mcp-bybit-node)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/kondisettyravi/mcp-bybit-node'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server