detect_arbitrage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It never states whether this is read-only analysis or executes trades, whether it queries live pools, what latency/cost it incurs, or what happens with the default thresholds. For a tool that could plausibly be action-oriented, that is a real gap.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the scope front-loaded and no filler. It is terse but not padded; the only cost is that brevity leaves the behavioral questions unanswered.

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 and no annotations, so the description should describe the shape of the result (a list of opportunities? route pairs? profit estimates?) and whether anything is executed. It does neither, leaving an agent unable to predict the return value.

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 both parameters (maxPriceImpact, minProfitPercentage) are already documented with defaults. The description adds nothing about how the thresholds interact or how they affect detection, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Detect') and resource ('arbitrage opportunities') and bounds the scope to KAYEN vs other DEXs. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like find_best_swap_route or get_multiple_prices, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as find_best_swap_route or get_multiple_prices. The agent must infer that this is for opportunity scanning rather than route-finding or price lookup.

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