outcomes_check_arbitrage

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It hints at a read operation via '[L:READ]' but discloses no other behavioral traits such as return format, required permissions, or rate limits. The instruction to call agent_catalog is not about behavior but a prerequisite.

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?

While extremely concise, the description lacks essential information about the tool's purpose and functionality. Proper conciseness would front-load key details; instead, it is under-specified and unhelpful.

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's name suggests a non-trivial operation (checking arbitrage), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain return values, when to use, or any behavioral details. No output schema or annotations exist to compensate.

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 schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'marketId' with description '市场ID，必填'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a 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 '[L:READ] CAT:[预测] | → 请先调用 agent_catalog' is cryptic and does not clearly state the tool's function. The name 'outcomes_check_arbitrage' suggests checking arbitrage in outcomes markets, but the description fails to elaborate, leaving the purpose vague.

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 only instructs to call 'agent_catalog' first, which is a prerequisite. It provides no guidance on when to use this tool over the many sibling tools like 'outcomes_list_events' or 'okx_predictions_ticker', thus lacking usage context.

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