get_arbitrage_scanner

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, indicating safe, broad scans. The description adds valuable behavioral details: update frequency (every 60 seconds), included metrics (premium %, reverse premiums, market share), and alerts (warning flags, volume/deposit spikes). This fully informs about the tool's behavior beyond 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 concise with three sentences: first sentence states purpose, second details return types, third mentions update frequency and alerts. No fluff, every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 zero input parameters and the existence of an output schema (per context signals), the description thoroughly covers what the tool returns: all tokens, premium types, market share, and alerts. It also notes update frequency, making it fully informative for an agent to decide to use it.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details as none are needed, and it efficiently describes the output instead.

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 on Upbit and Binance, returning token-by-token metrics. It distinguishes from siblings like get_kimchi_premium by emphasizing 'ALL tokens' and cross-exchange arbitrage, making its purpose specific and actionable.

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 explicitly says it's 'Essential for cross-exchange arbitrage analysis,' which provides clear context. However, it does not directly compare with siblings or specify when not to use, missing explicit exclusions.

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