Deribit Announcements

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, openWorld=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying the 'body' field is HTML and that announcements may explain market/order anomalies. However, response structure and sort/return behavior remain implicit, so there is still a moderate gap.

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 three very short sentences, each adding independent value: purpose/content, HTML format warning, and when-to-use guidance. There is no repetition of schema or annotation information.

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 simple read-only announcements-list tool with two optional parameters and full schema coverage, this is mostly complete: it covers content scope, the HTML body caveat, and a real-world trigger scenario. Since there is no output schema, slightly more detail about returned announcement fields would push it to perfect completeness.

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%: 'count' documents default/max, and 'start_timestamp' documents pagination and inclusive-exclusive behavior. The description itself adds no parameter-specific detail, so it does not exceed the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('查询') and clearly names the resource (交易所公告), then enumerates concrete content categories: system upgrades, maintenance windows, new contract launch, and rule changes. This distinguishes it from the sibling market-data tools, all of which return prices, volumes, or instrument data rather than announcements.

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 gives an explicit usage context: check announcements before troubleshooting abnormal market quotes or order placement failures. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, but no sibling tool is a direct substitute for announcements, and the guidance is sufficiently actionable.

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