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

Annotations already declare this a safe read-only, open-world computation, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the complementary-binary convention (No = 1 - Yes), that feePctPerLeg can erase an apparent spread and is reported honestly via isArbitrage, and the important caveat that the caller asserts the same bet and the tool does not verify it.

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?

Front-loads the core operation and scoping, but is a single very dense paragraph with some redundancy (the fee/spread point is stated twice) and could be broken into clearer units.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the returned fields (isArbitrage, locked-in cost, guaranteed profit, ROI, which side to buy where), covers assumptions and both input modes, and states the verification boundary—nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that feePctPerLeg is optional and materially affects the result, and that quotes and manualProbabilitiesPct are alternatives rather than complements.

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 (checks quotes across venues for arbitrage) and frames the exact scope: 2-5 quotes for the SAME binary bet, with direction-independent logic. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like run_funding_arbitrage or run_prediction_market_edge.

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?

Gives explicit trigger phrasing ("can I arbitrage this bet across venues?", "is there a risk-free profit here?") and clarifies the two input modes (live quotes vs manualProbabilitiesPct) as mutually exclusive, matching the schema's either/or design.

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