find_arbitrage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses credit costs, default bookmaker count, why three-way markets are rejected, how lines are paired (e.g., Over 8.5 never with Under 9.5), and the meaning of min_profit including negative values. This goes far beyond typical descriptions.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then cost, market compatibility, line behavior, and parameter specifics. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized 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 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description covers all critical behavioral aspects: cost, defaults, market edge cases, and parameter nuances. The existence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, and the description still achieves high completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains min_profit (percentage, default, negative behavior), clarifies the market parameter by listing compatible types, and implicitly covers bookmakers default. However, stake and sport are not elaborated, leaving some ambiguity for those parameters.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Find bets where backing both sides at different bookmakers locks in profit.' This clearly defines the tool's function and scope, distinguishing it from siblings like get_odds or find_value_bets by focusing on arbitrage.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (arbitrage detection), explains cost implications relative to get_odds, and details which markets are supported. It lacks an explicit 'when-not-to-use' statement or direct alternative comparison, but the context is strong enough for an agent to make an informed choice.

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