Deribit Public Settlements

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful context: the tool covers market-wide events only, not personal P&L, and clarifies the mutual exclusivity constraint. This goes beyond the annotations 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose with exclusions, a mutual-exclusivity constraint, and a pointer to the alternative tool. No redundancy or fluff.

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 is concise but covers the core purpose, a key input constraint, and the alternative for personal data. With 6 parameters and no output schema, a bit more detail on return structure could be helpful, but the annotations and schema cover important aspects. Overall adequate for this market-data 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?

Schema coverage is high (83%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds the critical semantic detail that currency and instrument_name must be mutually exclusive and one is required, which is not expressed in the schema. This is valuable added meaning.

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 market-wide settlement, delivery, and bankruptcy events, explicitly excluding personal position P&L. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool deribit_get_settlement_history, which handles personal results. The verb '查询' (query) is specific.

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?

Explicitly states that currency and instrument_name are mutually exclusive and one must be provided. It also provides a clear alternative for personal settlement/delivery results: deribit_get_settlement_history. This is strong usage guidance.

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