analysis.arbitrage

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool scans markets and returns price gap and profit percentage, implying a read-only operation. No contradictory or missing behavioral traits are apparent, though it could mention that no modifications occur.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and condition, followed by a brief output note. No extraneous information is included.

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?

The description explains the tool's function and return fields but lacks detail on the output structure (e.g., list of objects, sorting order). Without an output schema, more specificity would improve completeness for agent usage.

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% with both parameters described in the schema. The tool description adds context that the min_spread refers to the price gap from $1 and that profit percentage is returned, slightly enhancing understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 uses a specific verb 'scan' and clearly identifies the resource as 'active Polymarket markets' and the condition 'YES + NO prices don't sum to $1.00'. It distinguishes itself from sibling analysis tools like analysis.opportunity by focusing specifically on arbitrage based on price sum discrepancies.

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 usage for arbitrage detection but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, nor does it mention alternatives among the numerous sibling analysis tools. The context is clear only by the tool's name and description, lacking explicit guidance.

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