Volatility Arbitrage Scan

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: true, and the description does not contradict this. It adds a 'Returns:' note indicating output, but does not provide additional behavioral context such as rate limits, data sources, or how results are derived. It is adequate but could be more transparent about the scan's scope.

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 concise and well-structured with a brief overview, a use-case bullet list, and a 'Returns:' section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or verbosity.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, and a general sense of the return value. It doesn't fully describe the output structure or include limitations/edge cases, but for a no-arg scan tool it is fairly complete.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description doesn't add anything about parameters (none exist), but this is fine. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and no deduction needed.

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 clearly states the tool scans for cross-index volatility arbitrage opportunities, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself somewhat from siblings but could be more explicit in differentiating from similar tools like scan_relative_value, which may also involve relative value opportunities.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use this tool when the user asks about:' list covering volatility arbitrage, cross-asset vol relationships, vol dislocations, and relative value opportunities. This gives clear guidance on when to select this tool over alternatives, though it doesn't mention what not to use it for.

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