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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses data sources, fee adjustment, profitability flagging, and pricing ($0.05 per call). However, it does not mention rate limits, error handling (e.g., missing ticker), or output format, leaving gaps for an agent to understand failure modes.

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 has two sentences that partially repeat content (e.g., 'DEX vs CEX arbitrage spread: the price difference...'). It is somewhat verbose and could be consolidated into a single clear sentence without losing 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?

No output schema is provided, so the description must explain return values. It only says 'flags any profitable arbitrage opportunity' without specifying the format (number, boolean, text). This leaves ambiguity for an agent expecting structured output.

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 description coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'symbol' described as 'Coin ticker, e.g., 'ETH', 'WBTC', 'ARB''. The description adds no new details beyond confirming it expects a coin ticker. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already documents the parameter.

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 computes the fee-adjusted net spread between DEX (DexScreener) and CEX (Binance/Bybit) and flags profitable arbitrage opportunities. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying 'For arbitrage agents' and explicitly contrasting with raw price comparison.

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 states 'For arbitrage agents' but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives. It implies the context (arbitrage detection) but lacks exclusions or comparisons with related sibling tools like crypto_signal_fusion or crypto_pre_trade_verdict.

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