Real-time price spread between Binance and OKX. Returns gross%, net% after fees, best route, and profitability verdict.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Crypto symbol: BTC, ETH, SOL, etc. | |
| taker_fee | No | Taker fee per side as decimal. Default 0.001 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description adds behavioral context by specifying 'Real-time' and detailing the metrics computed (gross%, net%, best route, profitability verdict). This goes beyond the schema but doesn't disclose side effects or limitations, which are not apparent for a read-only calculation tool.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists outputs, with no unnecessary words or 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 (2 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, output values, and real-time nature. It could optionally mention fee math or error conditions, but these are not essential for basic usage.
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 provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (symbol and taker_fee), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states.
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 explicitly states 'Real-time price spread between Binance and OKX' and enumerates return fields (gross%, net%, best route, profitability verdict), making the tool's function clear and distinct from sibling tools like get_funding_rate and get_exchange_status.
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 clear context for when to use the tool (to check inter-exchange spread) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it lacks explicit guidance beyond its own purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of crypto arbitrage: cash-carry yield, exchange status, funding rates, and price spreads. There is no functional overlap.
All tools use a consistent `get_<resource>` pattern with snake_case, making them predictable and easy to understand.
With 4 tools, the server covers the core data needs for crypto arbitrage analysis without being overwhelming or sparse.
The server covers essential real-time data for arbitrage (funding rates, spreads, exchange status, cash-carry yield). Minor missing features like historical data or trade execution are not critical for its stated purpose.