get_arbitrage_scanner

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds significant behavioral details: updates every 60 seconds, warning flags, volume/deposit soaring alerts, and the types of calculations performed. No contradiction with annotations.

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 detailed but includes extra information about pricing and payment methods which, while useful, makes it longer than necessary for a no-parameter tool. It is well-structured with emojis for readability.

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 parameters and presence of output schema, the description is complete. It explains the return values comprehensively (premium %, reverse premiums, gaps, market share, flags, alerts) and specifies the update interval.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds rich context about the output, including premium percentages, gaps, flags, and alerts, which helps the agent understand what the tool returns.

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 Kimchi Premium for all tokens (180+) traded on both Upbit and Binance, returning detailed metrics for arbitrage analysis. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_kimchi_premium by mentioning coverage of all tokens and additional data points.

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 implicitly guides use for cross-exchange arbitrage analysis by listing relevant metrics and update frequency. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but context from sibling tools helps.

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