pendle_scan_yt_arbitrage

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains the comparison logic between underlying APY and implied rate, and contrasts execution with Spectra. It implies a read-only scan operation, which is consistent. Could be more explicit about no side effects.

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 well-structured with bullet points and comparisons, earning its length. It is slightly verbose but each part adds value. Could be trimmed slightly but remains effective.

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?

The description explains the concept and related tools but lacks details about the output format. Without an output schema, describing typical return fields (e.g., opportunity list with spreads, APYs) would improve completeness.

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?

All 9 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra semantics beyond the schema, mainly reinforcing the spread concept. It does not introduce new parameter details.

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 scans Pendle markets for YT mispricing, explaining the concept of positive/negative spreads. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pendle_scan_opportunities and spectra_scan_yt_arbitrage by explicitly mentioning execution differences.

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 explains when to use the tool (scan for YT arbitrage) and provides cross-references to pendle_get_market_details for deep dives and mv_compare_yield for cross-protocol comparison. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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