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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and closed-world scope, and the description adds real substance: per-scan pricing via x402 in USDC, per-minute cadence, fee-inclusive calculation on real books, and gap-duration output. The one behavior it omits is the exact current status payload, though it does say a status object is returned.

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?

Availability and price are correctly front-loaded before the capability pitch, and the final sentence states the present-day behavior. Phrasing like 'every pair and every venue couple, every minute' is promotional but still conveys cadence and coverage.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it covers availability, cost, scope, and what a call returns today. The missing piece is the specific free alternative to use in the interim.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline applies. Nothing in the text misleads about inputs.

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?

Identifies the resource and computation precisely: a delta-neutral opportunity scanner across every pair and venue, measured net of opening and closing both legs. It does not name the sibling it overlaps with (delta_neutral), so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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?

It tells the agent the tool is not yet available and that calling it now yields status plus an alternative free tool, which is useful routing context. However, it never names that free tool, leaving the agent to guess among delta_neutral, best_venue, or farming_route.

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