find_arbitrage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool uses 'real-time poe.ninja rates to identify market inefficiencies' and includes a strong instruction about not guessing league names. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, possibility of rate limits, or what happens when no opportunities exist. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. It consists of three sentences, each earning its place: what it does, data source/use case, and a critical usage warning. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains the core function, data source, and usage context. It lacks a description of the return format (e.g., a list of loops), but given the tool's simplicity and the strong schema coverage, this is a minor gap.

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 covers 100% of parameter descriptions, including specific details for league and min_profit_percent. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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: 'Find currency arbitrage opportunities' and elaborates with 'profitable trading loops where you can trade currencies in a circle and end up with more than you started.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like get_currency_rates (which simply fetches rates) and calculate_trading_profit (which likely computes profit for a single trade).

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'Perfect for making passive income through currency trading.' It also emphasizes a critical behavioral rule ('Use the EXACT league name the user specifies - do not substitute or guess'), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions. However, the unique focus on arbitrage loops implies when it should be used over related tools.

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