Live Liquidation Heatmap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool surfaces liquidation clusters across price levels for any coin, but does not cover operational behaviors such as rate limits, data freshness, or exact return format. No contradiction with annotations.

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 no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and resource, and the second explains what the tool shows and when it is useful. Every clause earns its place.

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 schema documents all four parameters and annotations cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature of the tool. The description explains the core output concept, liquidation clusters across price levels, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose even without an 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%, and each parameter (coin, range, buckets, useToonFormat) already has a detailed description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but it does not need to because the schema carries the full burden.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a liquidation heatmap for any coin.' It further clarifies the tool's distinguishing purpose by explaining it shows liquidation clusters across price levels, which separates it from sibling tools like live_recent_liquidations or live_liquidation_summary.

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 implies the tool is for identifying support/resistance and potential squeeze zones, which gives useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this heatmap versus alternatives like live_liquidation_summary or live_recent_liquidations, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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