scan_volatility_arb

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It truthfully explains that the tool identifies mispriced implied volatility relationships and returns opportunities, implying a read-only scan. It does not discuss limitations, data sources, output structure, or any potential side effects, leaving significant behavioral context unclear.

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 compact and well-structured with a clear first line, a usage intent list, and a 'Returns' section. It avoids fluff but the final 'Returns' line somewhat redundantly restates the opening's 'opportunities across indices', which keeps it from being a perfect 5.

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?

The tool is a no-argument scan, so the description is the only guide to expected results. It tells the user when to use it and that it returns opportunities, but does not describe the output format (e.g., list of pairs, metrics, sort order) or any constraints like covered index pairs or data subscription requirements. This leaves gaps for a zero-parameter scan tool.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none, and it adds no parameter-related confusion.

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 opens with a specific verb phrase 'Scan for cross-index volatility arbitrage opportunities' and clarifies it identifies mispriced implied volatility relationships between correlated assets. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_relative_value or find_iv_opportunities by focusing on cross-index volatility 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 explicitly lists when to use the tool ('Use this tool when the user asks about:') followed by four relevant intent categories. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools that might be more appropriate, so it misses the 'exclusions' aspect of a 5.

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