find_arbitrage

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the arbitrage principle and return type, but omits details like auth needs, rate limits, or whether it performs a live scan. It is adequate but not rich.

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 (~8 sentences) and front-loaded with purpose, followed by explanatory context. Each sentence adds value; no redundancy.

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 single optional parameter and presence of an output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage hints, and parameter meaning adequately. It could mention output structure but is sufficient.

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 0% description coverage, so the description's mention of 'min_spread_cents: Minimum spread to report in cents (default 2.0)' adds essential meaning 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 clearly states the tool's specific action: finding cross-platform arbitrage between Polymarket and Kalshi. It distinctly separates itself from sibling tools like get_category_markets or get_trending_markets by focusing on price discrepancy detection.

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 provides context on typical arb spreads (1-5 cents) and warns that larger spreads (>20 cents) likely indicate non-equivalent markets, helping the agent interpret results. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use directives compared to alternatives.

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