Deribit Historical Candles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that timestamps are in milliseconds, but this is also present in the schema parameter descriptions. No other behaviors (e.g., response format, limits) are disclosed, but there is 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?

Description is a single concise sentence that states the primary action (query historical K-line and volume) followed by a note on timestamp units. No filler, front-loaded with purpose, and 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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain the return format. It only mentions 'K线和成交量' without details on OHLCV structure, volume units, limits, or pagination. For a tool with 4 required parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all four parameters. The tool description provides no additional parameter meaning beyond reiterating 'specified contract' and timestamp units, both already in the schema. Baseline of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 historical K-line and volume for a specified contract, which distinguishes it from siblings like mark_price_history or historical_volatility. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide differentiation beyond the resource and type of data.

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?

No usage context is provided. The description only states the function without indicating when to choose this over similar tools like deribit_get_mark_price_history or deribit_get_historical_volatility, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative references.

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