Rank cross-DEX spread opportunities on a chain

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden and excels: it discloses ranking by gross USD rather than bps, exclusion of low-liquidity venues, gross vs net numbers, the non-profit/non-advice nature, live vs snapshot timing, response stating data source, and key requirements. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure.

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?

Although long, every sentence adds meaningful value: main action, ranking rule, an illustrative example, exclusion rationale, gross/net clarification, live vs snapshot behavior, and access instructions. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 the absence of an output schema and the presence of four parameters, the description is remarkably complete. It covers input behaviors, output field names, ranking logic, limitations, authentication needs, and response characteristics, leaving no major gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.

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 already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all parameters, including the live parameter's behavior and the chain enum. The description adds some context about live requiring a key and snapshot timing, but it largely reiterates schema information. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Sweep a whole chain and rank its cross-venue price dislocations' and enumerates the output fields (buy venue, sell venue, spread in bps, optimal size, gross USD). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_prices by focusing on spread opportunities across venues.

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 guidance on when to use live=true (with RapidAPI key) versus the free hourly snapshot, and explains the ranking metric (gross USD at optimal size). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives among sibling tools, so it misses the 'when not to use this' aspect.

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