pmus_line_ladder_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the exact pricing rule, the arbitrage execution logic, the after-fee consideration, and the types of reported results. It also discloses that snapshot quotes can lag, supporting the refresh_quotes parameter.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence carries information: the rule, the arbitrage condition, the outputs, and the quote freshness caveat. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present and all parameters documented in the input schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. It could add an explicit usage note about when to prefer sibling tools, but for the tool's complexity it is essentially complete.

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 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description does not add much parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but it reinforces the event context (spread and total lines). It meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 identifies the resource (an event's spread and total ladders), the action (checking for impossible pricing), and the specific arbitrage condition (harder line bid above easier line ask). It also names concrete outputs (locked P&L, size at touch, label conflicts), distinguishing it from generic market scan tools.

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 when to use the tool (when checking for mispriced ladders and arb opportunities) but does not explicitly mention any alternative tools or when not to use it. There are sibling tools like pmus_analyze_spread and pmus_scan_extreme_markets that overlap in intent, so clearer routing would improve this dimension.

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