arb_signal

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool is read-only and requires no wallet, and describes the output format (price per pool, max spread %, arb flag with buy/sell recommendation). No contradictions.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what the tool does, its read-only nature, and what it returns. No redundancy, front-loaded with core action. Perfectly concise.

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 tool has 1 optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the purpose, input (optional token focus), output (price per pool, max spread, arb flag), and the threshold for flagging (spread > 1%). No additional context needed.

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 a single optional parameter 'token'. The description adds meaning by specifying it is for focusing on a specific token symbol (e.g., 'WETH', 'USDC', 'cbBTC'), which goes beyond the schema's basic description.

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 checks MfT price across three specific pools and flags arbitrage opportunities, with a verb ('Check', 'flag') and specific resource ('MfT price across multiple pools'). It distinguishes from siblings like mft_price (likely just price) and swap_token (actual swap).

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 explicitly states 'READ-ONLY, no wallet needed', which guides usage. It implies when to use (to find arb opportunities) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or contrast with alternatives. Sibling tools provide context for differentiation.

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