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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses cost ($0.01 USDC per call), sorting order (biggest spread first), and the actionable threshold (>3% spread). It omits return format details and does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a moderately simple tool (3 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, cost, sorting, and threshold. It lacks detail on the return structure, but given the absence of an output schema, the description is largely complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description mentions a >3% spread flag, which loosely relates to the minSpreadPct parameter but does not add syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('find') and resource ('prediction market arbitrage opportunities'), naming the three platforms compared. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like prediction_market_odds or prediction_market_aggregator, which focus on quotes or aggregation rather than arbitrage detection.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use: finding arbitrage opportunities with a >3% spread threshold. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name specific alternatives, but the purpose is sufficiently self-contained for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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