Deribit Option Chain

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 what fields are returned and explains the two operational modes, which is valuable context beyond the annotations. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but that is not essential given the read-only nature.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function and then the usage modes. Every sentence carries essential information without redundancy. It is efficiently structured for quick agent comprehension.

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 read-only query tool with 3 documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the two possible queries and the key returned fields. It lacks details on output formatting or potential large-response limits, but given the tool's simplicity and strong annotations, it is sufficiently 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters, but the description adds the key mutual-exclusivity constraint and clarifies that kind only applies in currency mode. This goes beyond the schema's static property definitions, making the semantics clearer for correct invocation.

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 contract summaries including open interest, implied volatility, volume, and bid/ask prices. It also distinguishes two modes (by currency for a full chain or other contract types, or by instrument_name for a single contract), which sets it apart from siblings like get_market_quote or get_instruments_info.

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 explicitly states mutual exclusivity between currency and instrument_name, and that kind only applies when using currency. This gives clear context on when each parameter is appropriate, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools for similar purposes, so a small deduction.

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