Live Liquidation Summary

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the aggregated nature, the time-window scope, and the specific output components (event count, penalty fees, closed PnL, per-coin rollups, liquidation timeline). 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?

Two efficient sentences with no filler. The core purpose and time-window behavior are front-loaded, followed by a compact list of return contents and intended use cases. Every sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the main return components. It could be richer by specifying ordering, timeline granularity, or aggregation semantics, but for a read-only summary tool with three optional parameters, this is reasonably complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds a little context by mentioning time window and per-coin rollups, which map to 'since' and 'coin', but it does not meaningfully enhance understanding of 'useToonFormat' or parameter syntax beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource: 'Get an aggregated liquidation summary over a time window.' The description further clarifies intended use cases ('summaries, rankings, and trend analysis') and distinguishes this from sibling liquidation tools like live_liquidation_heatmap and live_recent_liquidations by emphasizing aggregation and rankings.

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?

Explicitly says this is the best liquidation tool for summaries, rankings, and trend analysis, giving the agent a clear use case. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough to route the agent correctly.

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