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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context by stating it updates every 60 seconds, returns reverse premiums, and includes pricing/payment details. It does not contradict annotations and contributes practical operational transparency beyond safe-read status.

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 functional but slightly lengthy, with a clear split between functional details and payment/docs info. Every sentence contributes value, and the use of line breaks and emojis improves readability, though it could be trimmed without losing core meaning.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description provides a rich, self-contained overview of the returned data (premium %, reverse premiums, gaps, flags, alerts) and practical usage context (price, payment, clients, docs). It is fully sufficient for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke this zero-parameter tool.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description provides a thorough overview of what the scanner returns without needing to explain parameters, which is consistent with the empty input schema.

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 scans Kimchi Premium for all tokens (180+) on Upbit and Binance, returning premium percentages, price gaps, and alerts. It uses a specific verb ('Scan') and resource ('Kimchi Premium') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_kimchi_premium by emphasizing cross-exchange arbitrage scope.

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 gives clear context: 'Essential for cross-exchange arbitrage analysis.' It explicitly tells when to use it (for arbitrage analysis) but does not mention when not to use it or directly name alternative tools, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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