parlayapi_find_arbitrage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden and does add genuine risk context: quotes, liquidity, and execution can change; profit is not guaranteed; calculations depend on returned quotes and requested filters. However, it never states whether the tool is read-only or actually places/executes bets, which matters given action-oriented siblings like checkout_link and magic_link.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by three short caveat sentences and a clean Args block. It is slightly repetitive on the uncertainty theme (dependencies, risk, availability), but every line carries information.

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?

Since an output schema exists, return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, all parameters, and key risks. The gaps are routing guidance relative to the sibling suite and explicit operational context (read-only vs executing, any prerequisites), which an agent would need for confident selection.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates: every parameter gets meaning, format, defaults, and examples (min_profit '1.5 for 1.5%', exclude_exchanges rationale about no-volume exchange asks, markets 'h2h,spreads,totals', sport_key examples). This goes well beyond the bare titles in the input schema.

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?

States a concrete action ('Request calculated cross-book price combinations') tied to the arbitrage use case, reinforced by the min_profit and exclude_exchanges filters in the parameter docs. This distinguishes it from siblings such as parlayapi_find_ev and parlayapi_find_middles, though it never names them explicitly.

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 use case is implied through 'cross-book price combinations' and the profit/exchange filters, and the description notes availability depends on sport, event, market and source. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions versus the many sibling tools (get_odds, find_ev, find_middles), leaving the agent to infer routing.

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