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

The description discloses the approximate nature, the proxy fallback, the collapsed two-leg fill, and the market-neutral design. It goes well beyond the annotations by detailing the trading logic and the fact that direction parameters are not exposed. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact paragraph with each sentence adding meaningful detail. It uses backticks for parameters and ends with a helpful cross-reference. Slightly dense but not wasted words.

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 covers the strategy logic, fallback mechanism, entry/exit conditions, and market-neutrality, which is sufficient for a complex tool. With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. It lacks explicit discussion of setup requirements like wallet balance, but the overall context is well-covered.

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 0%, but the description explains the meaning of entry_spread_pct, exit_spread_pct, and the EMA period, and references strategy_dca_create for the risk parameter. However, it does not explain other parameters like wallet_address, target_token, usd_per_trade, or slippage_bps, which are required or affect execution.

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 'Create an arb strategy' and further defines it as 'cross-venue price-discrepancy convergence (APPROXIMATE)'. This clearly distinguishes it from other strategy creation tools like strategy_momentum_create or strategy_dca_create.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for arbitrage strategies based on cross-venue price discrepancies, with explicit entry/exit conditions and a fallback proxy. It does not name alternative tools for when not to use it, but the context strongly implies its use case.

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