kalshi_polymarket_arb

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

Annotations already carry the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact the annotations do not: the $0.015 USDC cost, implying a paid call. It says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or what a scan returns.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the venue coverage and operation are front-loaded. It is dense and slightly marketing-flavored ('Unified', '$0.015 USDC' parenthetical), which keeps it just short of ideal.

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?

For a read-only, 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition covers the domain, venues, and cost. However, it never explains what the arbitrage scan actually returns (spreads, matched markets, venue pairs), which is the key thing an agent needs to interpret results from a tool with no output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both 'query' and 'limit' are already documented in the schema (including the example keywords and the 1-25 range). The description does not add any syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific domain (prediction markets), the three venues it unifies (Kalshi, Polymarket, Manifold), and the operation (cross-venue probability spread / arbitrage scanning). It is clear what the tool does, though it is written as a stacked noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement and never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'prediction_markets' tool.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternative 'prediction_markets'. The cost figure ($0.015 USDC) hints at a paid tier but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice over siblings like perp_funding_arbitrage or prediction_markets.

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