fetchArbitrage

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

The annotations already mark this as read-only (readOnlyHint=true). The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, data freshness, or permissions). It fails to build on what annotations provide.

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 extremely concise at four words, avoiding unnecessary detail. It is front-loaded and to the point, though slightly underspecified for the complexity of the tool.

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?

Despite having 6 parameters and no output schema, the description gives no context about what constitutes an arbitrage opportunity, how results are structured, or how the 'exchange' parameter relates to cross-exchange analysis. The schema partially compensates, but the description is insufficient.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, the description adds no parameter explanations. Parameters like minSpread and category lack descriptions in both schema and description. The description does not clarify the meaning or constraints of any parameter.

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 uses a clear verb ('Find') and resource ('Arbitrage Opportunities'), distinguishing it from many sibling fetch tools. However, it lacks specificity about whether opportunities are across markets or exchanges, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like compareMarketPrices or fetchOrderBooks. There is no mention of prerequisites or typical use cases.

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