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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world). The description goes well beyond: refresh cadence (every 30 minutes), no API key, no cost, the arb criterion (combined cost under $1), and an explicit caveat that results are informational and resolution rules/fees/withdrawal terms must be verified before trading.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then return shape, then the parameter, then the disclaimer — a logical order with almost no filler. It is dense and a little long, but each clause (roi_pct, profit_per_dollar, trade URL, refresh interval) carries information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract — and it does, naming the per-opportunity fields (venue, price, direct trade URL, combined cost, when the arb last opened) plus the derived arb metrics. Combined with annotations and the fully documented parameter, nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret this tool is missing.

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% and the single parameter's description already explains that true filters to live arbitrages and false returns the full matched board. The description restates that behavior but adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Live cross-venue prediction-market arbitrage board') and precisely what it returns: the same events priced on Polymarket, Kalshi/Robinhood, and PredictIt side by side. It is unmistakably distinguishable from every sibling tool (email, logo, trends, funding, etc.).

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?

Identifies the target caller ('Built for trading agents that poll for tradeable spreads') and the condition for the only parameter (arbs_only=true for live arbs only). There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, but no sibling overlaps this space, so no alternative routing is needed.

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