get_arbitrage_opportunities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a significant behavioral trait: 'Costs $0.003 USDC.' However, it does not elaborate on output format, latency, or other nuances, though the 'get' nature implies read-only operation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the cost note is a concise single sentence. No wasted words.

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 parameterless get tool with no output schema, the description is adequately complete: it identifies the exchanges and the cost. It could be improved by noting the output type (e.g., list of opportunities), but given the simplicity, it is sufficient.

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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not need to explain parameters, as there are none.

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's function: 'Get cross-exchange arbitrage opportunities between MEXC, Binance, Bybit, OKX.' It specifies the verb (Get), the resource (cross-exchange arbitrage opportunities), and the scope (specific exchanges), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_crypto_prices or get_funding_rates.

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 implies the use case (detecting arbitrage opportunities) but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when to prefer this over others. The mention of specific exchanges provides context, but no exclusions or alternative guidance are given.

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