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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that totals are a floor due to Binance/Bitget throttling (a real data-quality caveat) and defines side=long semantics. It does not cover auth or rate-limit behavior, and the '[measured]' tag is unexplained, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose ('Liquidation totals... already added up') and dense throughout. Every sentence earns its place (alternatives, caveat, param bounds), though the run-on enumeration of outputs is slightly heavy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns, and it does so well via the rekt/by_symbol/by_exchange/series breakdown. Combined with the throttling caveat and the alternative-tool routing, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only minor gaps (no auth/permission notes) remain.

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 coverage is 0% and the single param only shows a default, so the description must compensate. It does: it gives the valid range (1 to 1440) and clarifies that minutes applies to the breakdowns and the series, which the bare schema does not convey.

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+resource ('liquidation totals... already added up') and enumerates the exact outputs (rekt over 1h/4h/12h/24h split long/short, by_symbol, by_exchange, series). It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_liquidations and get_liquidation_cascades, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 'Start here for how much was liquidated' and routes to alternatives by condition: get_liquidations for individual orders, get_liquidation_cascades for events. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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