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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: prices are after taker fees, the list is sorted arbitrage-first, label is only arbitrage under $1 on contracts that settle alike and at most 15s old, reasons explains downgrades, and it warns that nothing is risk-free. It also discloses the Polymarket US-persons restriction and that no sign-in is needed.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, with the return shape (list vs ref, arbitrage first) stated first and caveats last. Every clause carries information, though the telegraphic fragments and unexplained jargon ('label', 'reasons', 'legs') make it harder to parse than it needs to be.

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?

An output schema exists, so raw return values need no explanation, yet the description still clarifies the semantics of key returned fields (edge, label, reasons). Combined with the us_only, ref and full behaviors, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 already 86%, but the description adds real meaning: ref switches between the list and all pairs, us_only defaults true and forces Polymarket pairs to never be arbitrage, and full adds legs and caveats. It reinforces the size constraint via 'sized' but leaves limit/league/min_gap to the schema.

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 and resource (find price gaps) and names the exact venues involved, then defines the core concept: a pair buys YES on one venue and NO on another with edge = 1 - cost per $1 contract. This is precise enough to distinguish it from the closest sibling, get_cross_venue_quotes, without opening either schema.

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?

Clearly routes usage modes: omit ref for the list (arbitrage first), supply ref for all pairs of one instrument, and use full to add legs and caveats. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state when to prefer a sibling like get_cross_venue_quotes, so it falls short of explicit alternatives.

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