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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the $0.003 USDC per-call cost and Solana x402 execution, plus the unthrottled nature of the data. It does not mention rate limits, auth, or failure behavior, but the key operational context for a paid read-only tool is covered.

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 compact sentences front-load the primary deliverable, then coverage, then cost. There is no filler, no repetition of schema details, and every sentence adds distinct value.

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 four optional parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the returned fields, venue scope, symbol breadth, and cost. It stops short of specifying ordering or exact output shape, but an agent has enough information to select and invoke the 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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds some useful context by noting the tape is complete and covers ~600 USDT perps, which enriches the meaning of symbol and scope, but it does not substantially expand on parameter formats or defaults.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Recent perp liquidations across Bybit, OKX and Binance.' It enumerates the returned fields and clarifies broad symbol coverage (~600 USDT perps), which distinguishes it from sibling liquidation tools that target single assets, history, or stats.

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 phrase 'recent' and 'complete unthrottled tape' give clear context that this is for current full liquidation flow rather than historical or aggregated liquidation views. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like get_liq_history or get_last_liquidation or state when not to use them.

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