Deribit Combos

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the bar is lower. Description adds behavioral details: payload reduction with ids_only, and requirement of currency when combo_id omitted. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Single concise sentence, logically structured with semicolons, front-loaded with purpose, and zero wasted words.

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 no output schema and 4 optional params, the description covers all major usage scenarios and even notes payload size differences. State param is not mentioned, but its enum is self-explanatory in schema. A brief note on state usage would make it fully complete.

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 covers 75% of parameters (state lacks description). Description explains the interplay between combo_id, currency, and ids_only, adding meaning beyond the schema's individual field descriptions. However, state remains undocumented in both.

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 the tool queries existing combo contracts and specifies three distinct modes (with combo_id, ids_only, and by currency). The verb '查询' (query) plus the specific resource (组合合约) distinguishes it from sibling market data tools.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use each parameter combination (combo_id for single detail, ids_only for lightweight list, else full list). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria relative to siblings.

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