crypto_orderbook_arbitrage_scanner

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

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose useful traits: the data is "live," it reads Level-2 depth, and it computes slippage at three fixed notional sizes. It does not say whether spreads are net of fees, how fresh the data is, whether any exchange requires keys or has rate limits, or whether the call is read-only and side-effect free — meaningful gaps for a market-data scanner.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: the verb comes first, followed by the three analytical outputs and then the venue scope. Nothing is repeated from the schema verbatim and no sentence is wasted.

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 three-parameter, all-optional tool with no output schema, the description conveys what analysis the caller gets back (depth, tiered slippage, arbitrage spreads) and over which venues. It falls short of fully explaining the default behavior when symbols/exchanges are omitted, and it does not sketch the shape of the returned records, which matters since no output schema exists to do that job.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point because it enumerates the supported exchange universe (Binance, Bybit, Kraken, Coinbase, OKX, KuCoin), whereas the schema's exchanges field is an unconstrained string array with only four defaults and no enum. It adds less for symbols and nothing for maxResults, and it does not explain the fixed slippage tiers as behavior tied to output.

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 ("Analyze") tied to three concrete resources: Level-2 order book depth, execution slippage at $10k/$50k/$100k tiers, and cross-exchange arbitrage spreads. It also enumerates the exact venues (Binance, Bybit, Kraken, Coinbase, OKX, KuCoin), which cleanly separates it from sibling tools like turkey_crypto_exchange_prices_monitor that also touch crypto prices.

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 intended use case is strongly implied by the phrase "cross-exchange arbitrage spreads" and the slippage tiers, so an agent can infer this is the tool for depth/liquidity/arbitrage questions. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of cases (e.g., single-venue price lookup), and no pointer to any alternative tool, leaving selection to inference.

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