Deribit Index Price

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds non-obvious behaviors beyond annotations: omitted index_name returns available names, and range triggers simultaneous history return. 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?

A single compact Chinese sentence conveys all key behaviors with semicolon-separated conditions; no filler or redundancy.

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 3-optional-parameter price/getter tool with no output schema and good annotations, the description covers all invocation modes and edge cases (omitted index_name, range with index_name). It is sufficient for an agent to select and call correctly.

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 param descriptions and enums; the description adds conditional meaning by linking range to history and omitted index_name to list output. This goes beyond the baseline schema documentation.

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/query) and resource (index price), and clearly distinguishes three behaviors: current price for a named index, history when range is provided, and index-name listing when index_name is omitted. This separates 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?

It explicitly describes conditional usage: provide index_name for current price, add range for history, or omit index_name to list available indices. It does not name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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