get_arbitrage_live

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses critical behavioral traits: the scan is 'fresh' (real-time calculation) and has high latency (10-30 seconds). However, it omits other behavioral details like error handling, rate limits, or whether this operation consumes API credits/quotas.

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 efficiently structured with the primary action in the first sentence, followed by a clear Args section. Every sentence earns its place—there is no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. The timing warning is appropriately front-loaded.

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 single-parameter simplicity and existence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is appropriately complete. It covers the action, performance characteristics, and parameter details. A minor gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from 'get_arbitrage,' but this is sufficient for tool 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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates via the Args section. It provides the parameter's semantics (minimum spread threshold), valid range (0.0-1.0), and default value (0.02/2%), giving complete context that the schema fails to document.

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 performs a 'fresh cross-platform arbitrage scan' with specific verb (run/scan) and resource (arbitrage opportunities). The term 'fresh' effectively distinguishes it from sibling tool 'get_arbitrage' (implying cached vs. live data), though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

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 provides implicit usage guidance by warning that the operation 'may take 10-30 seconds,' hinting it shouldn't be used when immediate results are needed. However, it fails to explicitly direct users to 'get_arbitrage' as the faster/cached alternative or clarify when live vs. cached data is preferable.

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