Top Liquidators

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description need not repeat those traits. It adds useful return-field context, but it does not disclose how 'top' is ordered or what metric determines the ranking, which is a meaningful behavioral gap.

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-loads the core purpose before listing return fields and a use-case question. The field enumeration is somewhat long but earns its place because there is no output schema.

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 helpfully lists the returned fields, and annotations cover safety and scope expectations. However, it omits the ordering semantics behind 'top' and does not clarify whether ranking is by total PnL, liquidations executed, or another metric, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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?

The input schema describes all three parameters with defaults, bounds, and descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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-resource pair ('Find wallets') and clearly defines the resource as wallets that profit from liquidating forced closes. It also enumerates the return fields, making the tool's purpose concrete and distinguishable from generic leaderboard siblings.

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 provides a clear use case: answering 'who is the biggest backstop/liquidation player?'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the intended query context is unambiguous.

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