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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: it explains the data structure (one row per symbol per month, columns), aggregation logic (excludes months with <5 daily records), persistence (never deleted, grows indefinitely), data source (CryptoWhaleInsights), authentication (none), rate limit (60 req/min), and cache (1-hr). This covers all behavioral traits an agent needs.

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 long but well-structured: it leads with the core purpose, then explains the data, use case, and constraints. Every sentence adds necessary detail. It could be slightly more concise, but for the complexity of the data, it is efficient.

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 fully complete for a parameterless tool. It covers what the tool returns, how the data is aggregated, persistence, use cases, data source, rate limits, and cache. 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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), so baseline is 4. The description adds extra value by explaining that the tool returns a fixed archive with no filtering options, and details the exact columns returned. This fully characterizes the parameterless invocation.

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 returns a permanent monthly archive of cross-exchange arbitrage opportunities. It uses specific language ('returns', 'permanent monthly archive') and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'arbitrage_history' by emphasizing monthly aggregation and permanence.

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 provides usage context by stating the archive is for answering historical questions like 'which token consistently had the highest arbitrage spread?' and explains it is aggregated from daily snapshots before they are purged. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like 'arbitrage_history' for daily data.

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