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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the output shape, the rule that a level disappears once price trades through it, and an explicit size warning (~35,000 numbers). It omits auth/prerequisite or rate-limit context, so not quite a 5, but it goes well beyond restating inputs.

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?

Information is front-loaded (what it is, how it differs, then size, then params), and most sentences earn their place. It is dense but not padded, though the internal-grid detail and the trailing param list make it slightly long; the '[modeled]' prefix adds nothing.

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 no annotations, the description must do everything, and it explains the return structure, the semantics of disappearing levels, and answer size, plus all parameter values. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret it appears to be missing.

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?

With 0% schema coverage the description fully compensates: it gives the symbol format (BASEUSDT) and enumerates allowed values for both optional params (exchange: all|binance|bybit|okx; range: 12h|1d|3d|7d) that the schema leaves as bare strings. This is exactly the information missing from the structured fields.

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 precisely what the tool returns: a time-by-price-bin grid of estimated USD liquidation levels, with named fields (grid[t][b], cols[t], bins[b], price[t]). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_liquidation_map ('current picture only'), so an agent can tell the two apart without opening a schema.

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?

It names the alternative (get_liquidation_map) and the exact conditions that select each: use the sibling for the current picture, use this one 'to see when a cluster formed and whether it is still there.' Both the when and the when-not are explicit.

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