find_arbitrage

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by specifying 'limit: 1-50' as a behavioral constraint beyond the schema, and clarifies min_spread as minimum profit in USD. However, it does not detail other traits like rate limits or data freshness.

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 very short at two sentences, front-loading the purpose. Every word earns its place, though additional context could be included without losing conciseness.

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 low complexity (2 optional params) and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and parameter basics. However, it lacks context on when to use it and any prerequisites, making it minimally viable.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides basic semantics for both parameters: min_spread is 'Min profit USD' and limit is implied to be between 1 and 50. This is helpful but could be more explicit (e.g., limit is max results).

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 states 'Cross-vendor profit opportunities,' which clearly indicates the tool's function of finding arbitrage across vendors. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_cards' or 'get_card_price', though the unique purpose is implied by the name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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