find_arbitrage

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

No annotations are provided, but the description richly explains behavior: it compares medians, not extremes; it explains why extremes are unreliable (fat-finger, stale listings); and it warns that a median crossing is a lead, not a guaranteed trade. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking 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 longer than average, but all detail earns its place: the worked example illuminates a real failure mode)Skip? The text is structured around a clear claim, a concrete example, and an action-guiding caveat. It could drop some anecdotal specifics, but it is not bloated or repetitive.

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 conceptual nuance of median-vs-extreme crossing, the description covers the decision-relevant context thoroughly. It omits parameter-level explanation and return-shape details, but the output schema exists separately and the core invocation context is sufficiently explained.

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 schema has 0% coverage and the description never mentions limit, league, or min_profit_pct. An agent must infer their meanings from names and defaults alone, with no authoritative explanation of how they interact with the median-crossing logic.

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 opens with a specific, measurable goal: 'Find currencies where the median bid exceeds the median ask.' It also explicitly contrasts this tool with stale_extremes, which makes the tool's unique position clear without needing to inspect the schema.

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 clearly conveys when to use this tool: when you want genuine median-crossing dislocations rather than extreme-order noise. It warns that extreme crossings are often staleness artifacts and names 'stale_extremes' as the alternative, though it doesn't lay out a full when-to-use/when-not-to-use matrix.

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