pool_spreads

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the return data (pool addresses, spread percentages, token pairs, profit windows) and the per-call cost ($0.05 USDC), which is sufficient for a read-only detection tool. It does not describe error handling or rate limits, but these are not critical for this simple use case.

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 three short sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core function, then lists return values and cost, making every sentence earn its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, target networks, and return values. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it, though it could optionally mention any time window or rate limit constraints.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema reflects this (100% coverage). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, so the baseline of 4 applies per the guidelines.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('detects') and resource ('arbitrage spread opportunities'), and adds distinguishing details (125+ pools, Base and Arbitrum L2 networks). This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like liquidation_watchlist or token_safety.

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 implies usage when arbitrage spread detection is needed, and the network scope further clarifies context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions but provides clear context.

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