SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Deribit BTC or ETH options for one expiry: at-the-money

crypto_deribit_options_skew

Read-only

Deribit BTC or ETH options for one expiry (default: nearest unexpired): at-the-money implied volatility (mark IV), and an IV skew at ±10% moneyness (put at 0.9x spot minus call at 1.1x spot, in IV points). This is a moneyness skew, not a 25-delta skew: Deribit's summary has no delta, so per-strike delta calls are not made. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "crypto_deribit_options_skew"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`expiry`	No	Expiry as Deribit writes it, e.g. 30OCT26 (optional; default nearest)
`currency`	No	BTC or ETH (default BTC)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`expiry`	No
`source`	No
`putWing`	No
`atmIvPct`	No
`callWing`	No
`currency`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`expiryDate`	No
`skewIvPoints`	No
`underlyingPrice`	No
`instrumentsInExpiry`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds genuinely useful commercial context: $0.002 per successful call via x402 with failed calls free, which is essential for cost-aware invocation. It still omits matters like rate limits, upstream endpoint failure behavior, what happens on a non-existent expiry, and whether the response includes the underlying spot used.

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?

Front-loads the tool's identity and metric definition, then pricing, with no filler sentences. The single long opening clause is dense and mixes scope, defaults, and caveats, which slightly hurts scannability but nothing is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return-field documentation is unnecessary, and pricing, methodology, and defaults are all covered. What remains thin is edge-case behavior (invalid expiry, illiquid strikes where a 0.9x/1.1x contract may not exist) for a tool that resolves a real Deribit endpoint.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented with formats and defaults, making 3 the baseline. The description restates the defaults and defines the skew construction (0.9x spot put minus 1.1x spot call, in IV points), but that is output semantics rather than added parameter meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific venue, asset set, and scope (Deribit BTC/ETH options, one expiry) plus the two exact quantities returned: ATM mark IV and an IV skew at ±10% moneyness. It even disambiguates the metric from a delta-based skew, so an agent cannot mistake it for a generic vol surface tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives usable defaults (nearest unexpired expiry, BTC) and explains why a 25-delta skew is unavailable, which tells the agent when this measure is the appropriate substitute. It does not explicitly compare against any sibling tool, though no sibling in the list overlaps with options skew.

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

All SiteCheck Crypto & Finance tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?