get_simple_ivBTC or ETH options snapshot via free Deribit public feed: ATM implied volatility, total OI, 24h volume. Pro adds put-call skew + full term structure parsing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | Yes | Underlying — Deribit free feed supports BTC and ETH. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so description is not required to repeat that. It adds value by specifying the source (Deribit public feed) and the free nature, which helps understand data freshness and limitations.
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?
Two sentences with clear information; no waste. Could be slightly more structured but is efficient.
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's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description adequately covers what data is returned. However, it lacks details on output format or pagination, though not critical for this use case.
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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter with enum and description. The description reinforces the asset choices but adds no extra semantics beyond affirming BTC and ETH.
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?
Description clearly states it provides a snapshot of BTC or ETH options from Deribit public feed, listing specific data points (ATM IV, OI, volume). Distinguishes from a Pro version with additional features. The verb-resource combination is specific and unambiguous.
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?
Context implies it's for quick, free snapshots, contrasting with Pro version for advanced needs. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to avoid this tool or name alternatives among siblings like `get_options_iv`.
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.
Many tools are specialized, but several pairs have fuzzy boundaries: e.g., get_funding_rates vs get_top_funding_rates, get_basic_macro vs get_macro_context, get_simple_iv vs get_options_iv. An agent could easily select the wrong one.
Most tools follow a 'get_X' pattern with descriptive noun phrases. There are a few exceptions like 'create_api_key' and 'search_markets', but overall the convention is consistent and readable.
With 47 tools, the server is overloaded. While the domain is broad, this many tools makes discovery and selection difficult for an agent, reducing coherence.
The tool set covers an impressively wide range: macro data, funding, prediction markets, OI history, whale tracking, risk analytics, position sizing, backtesting, and signal generation. It leaves no obvious gaps for a crypto trading assistant.