scan_spreads

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'scan', which implies a read operation, but does not disclose return format, sorting, rate limits, or how parameters like minSpread and minVolume affect behavior. No side effects or special traits are mentioned.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the core action and a use case. It contains no unnecessary words, and every sentence serves a purpose—although the conciseness sacrifices substantive detail, it is well-structured for what it includes.

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?

For a tool with five configurable parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the returned data looks like, how parameters interact, or any default behavior. This is inadequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional assumptions.

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% description coverage, and the description provides no explanation of the five parameters (limit, maxPairs, minSpread, minVolume, quoteAsset). This leaves the agent to infer meaning from parameter names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation, especially for parameters like minSpread with a default of 0.1.

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 for wide bid-ask spreads across trading pairs, using a specific verb and resource. It also provides context via 'useful for market-making opportunities', but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like scan_best_opportunities or get_spread, preventing a 5.

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?

While it mentions market-making opportunities, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_spread or scan_best_opportunities. There are no exclusion criteria or clear context beyond the vague use case, leaving the agent without adequate usage direction.

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