Live crypto option quote from Deribit: mark price, IV, open interest, greeks, underlying. Send { instrument } (e.g. BTC-28AUG26-70000-C) or { currency, strike, type, expiry? }. Real listed-option pricing for BTC/ETH/SOL. [x402 paid tool — price $0.05; POST /api/options/price]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | call or put | |
| expiry | No | e.g. 28AUG26 | |
| strike | No | Strike price | |
| currency | No | BTC, ETH, or SOL | |
| instrument | No | Deribit instrument name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is paid ($0.05), live from Deribit, supports BTC/ETH/SOL, and returns specific fields. However, it lacks details on error handling, data freshness, or rate limits.
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 extremely concise: two sentences covering purpose, input formats, output fields, and pricing. Every sentence adds essential information with no 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?
Given the tool has 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It explains both input alternatives, the origin (Deribit), supported assets, and the specific fields returned (mark price, IV, etc.), compensating for the missing output schema.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, and the description adds significant value by showing two parameter groups (instrument vs. currency+strike+type+expiry) with an example (BTC-28AUG26-70000-C). This clarifies usage beyond the schema.
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 retrieves a live crypto option quote from Deribit, listing specific data fields (mark price, IV, open interest, greeks, underlying). It distinguishes from sibling tools like options_chain or options_greeks by focusing on a single option quote.
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 for getting a single option quote via two input formats (instrument or currency+strike+type+expiry) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like options_chain or options_greeks. No exclusions or comparisons are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are organized by domain prefix (e.g., 'crypto_', 'rh_', 'snipe_'), which helps distinguish between areas. Within each domain, they serve distinct purposes, though some overlap between domains exists (e.g., price data appears in multiple groups). Overall, an agent can navigate effectively.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a domain prefix and a verb_noun combination (e.g., 'compliance_risk', 'rh_stock', 'snipe_honeypot'). This makes the API predictable and easy to explore.
With 159 tools, the server is extremely large. While the broad scope of web3 and utility functions justifies many tools, the count is significantly above the typical range for a coherent toolkit, potentially overwhelming agents and increasing selection error.
The toolkit covers a wide range of web3 operations: crypto, DeFi, compliance, safety, scheduling, memory, etc. There are no obvious major gaps for its intended purpose, though some niche areas might be missing.