arb_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must stand alone. It discloses the tool is for scanning and finding largest spreads, which implies read-only behavior. However, it lacks specifics about data sources, update frequency, or any side effects. The description is minimally transparent.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, the second clarifies the output. Extremely concise and front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the agent doesn't know the return format. The description is adequate for a simple scan tool but could be more complete by indicating what fields each result contains (e.g., symbol, spread, exchanges).

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 parameter descriptions. The description adds value beyond the schema by stating the default value for minSpread (5) and clarifying that omitting symbols returns all. This helps the agent understand usage.

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 it scans for funding rate arbitrage opportunities and finds symbols with the largest spreads. It uses a specific verb ('scan') and resource ('funding rate arbitrage opportunities'), effectively distinguishing it from related tools like get_funding_rates or get_arb_compare.

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 finding arbitrage opportunities but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_funding_rates or get_arb_compare). No exclusion criteria or context for when not to use it.

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