get_arbitrage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns legs with odds and stake fractions, and supports pagination. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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, two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core idea ('Arbitrage scanner') and then lists key features. However, the first sentence is a bit dense; splitting could improve readability slightly.

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 no output schema, the description should specify the full return structure. It mentions legs and stake fractions but omits details about the overall response shape, pagination fields, or error handling. While it covers the essentials, it leaves some gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by providing examples (e.g., min_profit as '1 for 1%') and clarifying pagination cursor usage ('pass the nextCursor'). It slightly enhances understanding beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Arbitrage scanner: cross-book opportunities with a guaranteed profit, including each leg...' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_odds or get_event_odds by focusing specifically on arbitrage opportunities.

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 clear context on when to use (for scanning arbitrage) and mentions filtering options, but does not explicitly state when not to use or offer alternatives. The context is sufficient for most agents.

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