Deribit Trade Volumes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is known. The description adds that it returns aggregated data for the whole exchange and mentions the optional extended parameter's effect, but does not describe other behaviors like pagination or rate limits. This is adequate given the annotation coverage, hence a 3.

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, well-structured sentence that starts with the core purpose, then details the breakdown, mentions the extended parameter, and ends with a clarifying statement about scope. Every clause adds value without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, read-only), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what data is returned (24h volumes by product type, optionally 7/30 days) and clarifies scope. It does not describe output structure, but that is acceptable without an output schema for a simple metric tool. A 4 seems right given the simplicity.

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 description coverage is 100% for the only parameter 'extended', which is described in the schema as returning 7-day and 30-day volumes. The description repeats this but does not add extra details like default value or behavior when false. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles the parameter description.

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 verb (查询/query) and resource (Deribit trade volumes aggregated by currency), and explicitly distinguishes it from personal trades ('与个人成交无关'). It also mentions the specific breakdown (calls, puts, futures, spot), which distinguishes it from other market data tools among siblings.

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 makes clear it is exchange-wide data, not personal, which guides when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for personal trades or other volume queries, but the context is sufficient for typical use cases. A 4 is appropriate because it clearly scopes the use case without explicit when-not-to-use references.

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