Live Recent Liquidations

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations by noting the data source ('from the syncer'), emphasizing 'real' liquidation events, and listing returned fields. This is meaningful context for an agent deciding whether the tool matches the query.

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: the core action is in the first sentence, followed by concrete example queries and the returned fields. Every sentence earns its place without extraneous detail.

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 read-only list tool with no required parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides enough context: what it returns, example user intents, and the source of the data. It could be slightly more complete by contrasting with live_liquidation_summary or live_liquidation_heatmap, but the available information is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 all four parameters are already well-documented in the input schema. The description's example about BTC liquidations over 30 days indirectly reinforces the coin and since parameters, but it does not add new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gets real liquidation events from the syncer, with a specific verb and resource. It provides example questions and the returned fields, making the tool's purpose understandable. It does not explicitly name or differentiate sibling tools like live_liquidation_summary or live_liquidation_heatmap, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'Best for questions like...' phrasing gives concrete usage context, such as locating actual forced unwind activity or requesting BTC liquidations over a period. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or point to alternatives, but the examples are enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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