botindex_arb_scanner

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool's purpose and cost, but lacks details on operational behavior—such as whether it performs real-time scans, how results are returned, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This is insufficient for a tool that likely involves data retrieval and processing.

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 brief and front-loaded, stating the core function and cost in a single sentence. There's no wasted text or redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating functional details from cost information for clarity.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., arbitrage opportunities, odds data), how results are formatted, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool with potential complexity in scanning multiple platforms, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation and outputs.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's function and cost. This aligns with the schema's completeness, warranting a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information.

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's function: scanning for arbitrage opportunities in prediction markets and sportsbooks. It specifies the domain (cross-platform) and includes a cost indication ($0.05), which adds practical context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'botindex_sports_odds' or 'botindex_hl_funding_arb', which might offer overlapping functionality.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions the tool's function but doesn't indicate specific scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools such as 'botindex_sports_odds' or 'botindex_hl_funding_arb'. This leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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