Bybit MCP Server

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 the tool provides 'comprehensive market regime detection and trading recommendations,' implying it's a read-only analysis tool, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or output format. This is inadequate for a complex analysis tool with 7 parameters.

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 concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and outputs. It's front-loaded with key information and avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured by separating analysis components from outputs.

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 complex tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., computational cost, error handling), usage context, and output specifics, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand tool invocation and results.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond implying analysis involves ML-RSI, order blocks, and liquidity zones, which loosely relates to includeMLRSI, includeOrderBlocks, and includeLiquidityZones. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 performs 'Advanced market structure analysis combining ML-RSI, order blocks, and liquidity zones' and provides 'market regime detection and trading recommendations.' This specifies the verb (analysis) and resources (market structure with specific components), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_ml_rsi or get_order_blocks beyond mentioning combination.

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. The description mentions what it does but doesn't indicate scenarios for its use, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like get_market_info or get_ml_rsi, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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