arbitrage_history

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cron-based data source, 180-day automatic purge, lack of auth, 60 req/min rate limit, and 5-min cache, plus the exact response shape. This is substantial behavioral context.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then compactly gives response format and operational constraints. Every sentence adds information; no filler except perhaps the ambiguous 'MCP-compatible' label.

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 single-parameter endpoint with no output schema, the description covers purpose, response structure, days control, retention, auth, rate limiting, and caching. No critical information an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 schema already describes days with default, min, max, and description, so coverage is 100%. The description only repeats this (e.g., '?days=7 (default 7, max 180)') without adding new field-level meaning, earning baseline 3.

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?

Clearly states a specific resource ('daily history of the top 5 cross-exchange arbitrage opportunities') and a concrete return verb ('Returns'). The 'top 5 per day' qualifier distinguishes this daily history from sibling history endpoints such as arbitrage_monthly.

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?

Provides explicit use cases with example AI questions ('which tokens appear most frequently in arbitrage?') and gives the default/max days. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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