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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the strategy being detected, but does not state whether the tool only reports opportunities or can execute trades, nor does it mention order limits, authentication, or result behavior. The words 'buy/sell' could be misread as execution without the qualifier 'opportunities'.

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 one compact, front-loaded sentence followed by a parameter list. Every element earns its place and there is no redundant wording or schema repetition.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns and confirm it is read-only, but it does not. It is enough to identify the tool's purpose but not enough for an agent to fully anticipate behavior and 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?

Because the schema only describes limit and minProfitPct, the description compensates for exchangeA/exchangeB by saying they filter pairs between two exchanges. It also gives a concrete example for minProfitPct (0.5). The main gap is not specifying which exchange is the buy side versus the sell side.

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 names a concrete resource ('spot arbitrage opportunities') and explains the strategy ('buy asset on one exchange, sell on another'), which clearly sets it apart from sibling tools like get_perp_arbitrage and get_funding_arbitrage. The tool name and description align on the 'spot' domain.

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 implies the tool is for detecting cross-exchange spot arbitrage, but it never explicitly states when to prefer it over the sibling arbitrage tools (perp, funding) or when not to use it. There is clear context but no exclusions or alternative routing.

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