Deribit Expirations

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

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful behavioral details such as timestamps being in milliseconds and the ability to use 'any' for filtering, which are not evident from the annotations alone.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences that convey all necessary information without redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's purpose and key behavioral aspects. Given that no output schema is provided, it is not required to explain return values; however, it could mention that it returns a list of expiration timestamps, but this is implied by the verb '列出'. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a simple listing tool.

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?

The schema already provides parameter types and enums, but the description adds semantic meaning: it explains that 'currency' and 'kind' can be set to 'any' to indicate no filtering. This clarifies the intended interpretation of these parameters beyond the schema definition.

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 clearly states the tool's function: listing tradable expiration dates for futures or options. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_trade_volumes or get_instruments_info by specifying the specific data returned. The verb '列出' and resource '可交易到期日' are clear.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative get_* tools. It only states what it does without situational context or comparative advantages. No usage recommendations are given.

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