find_arbitrage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core check logic but does not describe return format, edge cases, or that it is a read-only operation. This is insufficient for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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 a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's action and purpose. No filler or redundancy, making it front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple one-parameter tool and the existence of an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks details about prerequisites (e.g., market data availability) and does not address potential error cases, making it minimally 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explicitly explain the condition_id parameter. While the parameter name is self-explanatory and the description references YES+NO prices, it doesn't add meaningful context beyond the schema's title, leaving parameter semantics under-specified.

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: to check if YES + NO prices sum to something other than 1.0, indicating a potential arbitrage. This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like estimate_market_probability or get_orderbook.

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 usage for arbitrage detection but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites. It lacks clear context about required data or conditions, such as needing orderbook data first.

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