find_multi_step_arbitrage

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

With no annotations present, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool does no live API calls, that each pair rate already paid its spread, that junk listings are filtered, that min_depth limits pushable amounts, and that trades depend on human counterparties. This is a very transparent explanation of the tool's true nature, going beyond typical simple statements.

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 every sentence adds meaningful detail—purpose, cost model, technical constraints, and execution method. It is front-loaded with the actual purpose and then covers nuanced nuances. The length is justified by the conceptual complexity of multi-step arbitrage, though the redundant mention of the example after the first sentence slightly adds wordiness.

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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return structures. It covers the core behavior and important cautions. The omission of any parameter-level detail, combined with the phantom 'min_depth' reference, leaves a small but meaningful gap in an otherwise thorough description.

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 zero parameter descriptions (coverage 0%), and the description does not explain the meaning of any of the five parameters. It mentions 'min_depth', which is not present in the input schema, so an agent cannot be sure whether that refers to an internal value or a missing parameter. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does nothing to clarify their behavior or defaults.

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 verb–object pair, 'Find profitable trade loops', and gives a concrete example (chaos -> exalted -> divine -> chaos). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'find_arbitrage' by showing the multi-hop scope. An agent can tell exactly what the tool does without opening 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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: it is pure analysis over already-collected rates, makes no API calls, and can be run freely. It also warns that trades complete via whisper, so results are leads rather than guaranteed executions. However, it does not explicitly mention a comparable sibling or state when to prefer this over a simpler arbitrage tool, so it lacks formal differentiation.

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