Arbitrage Scanner

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

Annotations already cover the read-only safety profile, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the ask/bid leg convention, the meaning of `basis: last` (gap may not be executable), the silent dropping of gaps over 15% with the reason (stale/illiquid/symbol collisions), and the exclusion of fees, withdrawal time and network costs. These are exactly the caveats that would otherwise cause an agent to over-trust the output.

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?

Three tight paragraphs: what it does, how it computes and what it discards, then what it omits. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every subsequent sentence carries a distinct caveat with no repetition of schema text.

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 5-parameter read-only scanner with no output schema, the definition covers method, data-quality guards and follow-up tools well. The only real gap is that the return shape (fields per opportunity, ordering, whether the gap is expressed in percent) is left for the agent to discover.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining the semantics behind the fields — why `executable_only` matters (last-price-only exchanges produce non-executable gaps) and why 15% is a hard ceiling on `min_gap_pct`. `limit`, `quote` and `min_exchanges` are left entirely to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'scan every coin on every exchange for the biggest price gaps' — and immediately explains the mechanic (buy cheapest, sell dearest). This distinguishes it from ticker/orderbook siblings that return single-venue data rather than cross-venue spreads.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent onward: 'confirm with ic_get_orderbook and ic_fees', which tells it this tool is a screening step, not an execution step. It does not, however, contrast against close siblings like ic_best_deal or ic_compare_price, so the agent must infer when this scanning tool is preferable to those.

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