get_arbitrage_opportunities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions scanning and reporting but lacks critical details: whether this is a real-time or cached scan, execution time, rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or potential costs beyond the stated $1.00 price. For a financial tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, though the 'Price: $1.00' line could be integrated more smoothly. It's appropriately sized for a 2-parameter tool without unnecessary elaboration.

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 the tool's complexity (financial arbitrage scanning), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema means return values don't need explanation, but critical behavioral aspects (scan methodology, limitations, cost implications) are missing. For a paid tool with financial implications, more context would be expected.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists both parameters (chains, min_profit_pct) and provides basic semantic context: chains are 'to scan for arbitrage' and min_profit_pct is 'minimum profit percentage to report'. However, it doesn't specify chain format (names, IDs), profit calculation methodology, or whether percentages are absolute or relative. The description adds value but doesn't fully compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Scan') and resource ('cross-chain arbitrage opportunities'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on arbitrage detection rather than other financial operations like analysis, bridging, or portfolio management. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools (none present in siblings).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, ideal scenarios, or limitations. While siblings include related tools like get_batch_quote or get_trade_signals, there's no explicit comparison or context for choosing this specific arbitrage scanner.

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