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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the paid nature ($0.05 USDC per call), the exact exchanges and universe, and the returned fields. It does not cover rate limits, auth requirements, or empty-result behavior, but the core behavioral and cost profile is clear.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences, each earning its place: scope, unique coverage rationale, and output/cost. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides enough: universe, exchanges, output fields, price, and parameter defaults via schema. Minor gaps remain around output formatting and behavior when no cascade is detected, but an agent can select and call this tool correctly.

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 100% (window, min_usd, min_events all have descriptions), so the schema carries parameter meaning and the description does not need to repeat them. It adds no param-level detail, but none is needed.

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?

States a specific action and resource: a cascade scan detecting liquidation cascades across ~600 USDT perps on Bybit, OKX and Binance. The 'FULL-UNIVERSE' and 'not just majors' framing clearly separates it from narrower liquidation tools, and the listed return fields further anchor its role.

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?

Gives clear context: this is the full-universe cascade detector for simultaneous multi-exchange coverage, with a unique-data rationale. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so the routing guidance is context-driven rather than explicit.

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