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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond that: the cost ('Uses 2 API calls') and a full explanation of how the score is constructed and what its sign means, which is exactly the kind of interpretive context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the score explanation is dense but earns its place by making the returned number interpretable. The trailing 'Uses 2 API calls' is a slightly dangling fact but is short and informative.

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 and only one optional parameter, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does: score direction, what the two sides represent, and that top markets per side are listed. The main missing piece is any statement of ordering, thresholds, or what a score near zero implies.

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 the single parameter 'top' is fully documented in the schema (default 5, range 1-20, 'how many markets to list on each side'). The description mentions 'the markets leaning hardest each way' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 states a specific resource and scope: a market-wide bullish/bearish skew derived from liquidation pressure, plus the hardest-leaning markets each way. It is clearly differentiated in substance from point tools like liquidation_map or recent_liquidations, but it never names a sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 whole market in one reading' implies this is the aggregate/summary tool, which is useful framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no routing to alternatives such as liquidation_totals or open_interest_ranking. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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