arbipulse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It mentions 'Execution-tier' and pricing ($0.10 per endpoint), but fails to disclose important behavioral traits such as whether endpoints are read-only or mutating, rate limits, authentication requirements, side effects, or return format. This is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 lengthy due to listing all 12 endpoints with prices, but it is reasonably structured with a clear opening sentence and bullet points. It could be more concise by omitting redundant pricing details per endpoint. The key purpose is front-loaded, but the overall verbosity detracts from quick comprehension.

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 high complexity (46 parameters, 12 sub-actions, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It explains endpoints but fails to map parameters to specific endpoints, leaving the agent unsure which parameters are relevant for a given action. The absence of output schema information further reduces 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?

Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, but most are mere repetitions of parameter names (e.g., 'category', 'chain', 'asset') adding no meaning. The tool description does not explain parameter usage or which parameters apply to which endpoints. With such minimal semantics, the baseline score of 3 is reduced.

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 arbitrage opportunities across multiple domains and lists specific endpoints. It uses a specific verb ('scanning arbitrage opportunities') and identifies the resource (arbitrage). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though the name and domain strongly imply its focus.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it or suggest other tools for different scenarios. It simply describes what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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