Deribit Market Quote

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral nuance by stating that querying with instrument_id returns only order book data, which is not visible in the schema. This appropriately extends beyond structured fields without contradicting them.

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 a single dense sentence that covers the purpose, key parameter relationship, and an important behavioral exception. There is no filler, and the most important information appears first.

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, optional-parameter read-only quote tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could slightly improve by noting whether IV/Greeks only apply to options or by naming the default depth in words, but the provided context is already sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so the schema already describes depth, instrument_id, and instrument_name. The description adds critical semantic value by explaining that instrument_name and instrument_id are alternatives and that id changes the returned data scope.

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 queries real-time market quotes, order book depth, implied volatility, and option Greeks for a specified contract. This specific verb-object structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like historical candles, trade volumes, or mark price history.

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 gives clear usage context: instrument_name and instrument_id are alternatives, with a distinct behavioral consequence when using id. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide exclusions, but the domain of real-time quote/order book/Greeks is sufficiently clear.

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