Deribit Platform Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the context of maintenance/settlement windows, which is useful but doesn't disclose any additional behavioral details beyond annotations (e.g., output format, latency). Slightly above baseline, but not substantial.

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, compact Chinese sentence that efficiently states the purpose and a key use case. No fluff, no redundancy. It's front-loaded and earns its place in every word.

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?

Given zero parameters, a simple purpose, and no output schema, the description is fully complete for a status tool. It explains what it does and why you'd use it (to check maintenance or settlement windows). No gaps remain.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description carries no parameter burden. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it doesn't add or omit relevant info.

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 action ('查询' = query) and the resource (Deribit platform status and server time), which distinguishes it from sibling market data tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name any sibling or alternative, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 mentions a use case ('可用于确认维护或结算窗口' - can be used to confirm maintenance or settlement windows), implying when to use it. But it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like deribit_get_announcements or other status-related tools.

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