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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the disclosure burden alone. It usefully names the data source (Deribit) and the supported assets (BTC/ETH), which tells the agent where the numbers come from, but says nothing about freshness, caching, rate limits, or whether requesting more expiries changes cost or latency.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads source, assets, and the metric inventory with no filler. Every clause names a distinct output, so nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema is present, so return values need not be explained. However, with zero annotations and 0% schema coverage on two parameters, the description should have closed the gap on 'expiries' semantics and on when to prefer this over other crypto derivatives tools, which it does not.

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 must compensate and only partly does: 'BTC or ETH' implicitly maps to the currency parameter, with the default invisible in prose. The 'expiries' integer parameter is never explained — the phrase 'per expiry the max-pain strike' hints at expiries but does not clarify that the argument is a count of expiries (default 6).

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 names the concrete resource (Deribit BTC/ETH options) and enumerates the specific metrics returned: open interest, call/put volume, put/call ratio, max-pain strike, ATM implied volatility, and DVOL. That is enough to separate it from generic siblings like crypto_candles or futures_basis, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

There is no statement of when an agent should reach for this tool versus alternatives such as futures_basis, perp_funding_rates, or crypto_market_overview, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the metric list.

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