get_arbs

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 mentions the authentication requirement (Pro key, Bearer header) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or any rate limits or caching behavior. The live_rescan parameter hints at rate limits in the schema, but the main description does not disclose this. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded ('PRO: recently detected live arbitrage opportunities') and the authentication note is brief. Every word earns its place; there is no repetition or filler.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not mention what the return value looks like or any structural details. It also omits important behavioral context like the look-back window and the fallback to logged arbs, which are only explained in the parameter schema. For an agent to correctly invoke and interpret results, more context is needed – especially given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 100%, with each parameter thoroughly explained (e.g., live_rescan describes behavior, costs, and fallback). The description itself adds no parameter-specific information beyond the overall purpose, so the baseline 3 applies. The schema handles the heavy lifting, and the description does not need to repeat it.

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 it retrieves 'recently detected live arbitrage opportunities' – a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_predictions or get_value_bets by the 'arbitrage' focus, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar tools. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to know what it does.

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 such as get_predictions or get_value_bets. The only practical note is the Pro key requirement, which is a prerequisite, not a selection criterion. The agent is left to infer usage context from the purpose alone, which is insufficient given the sibling set.

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