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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that results are a snapshot (age_s) and that sort='value' means largest first, plus the meaning of address vs l1_address. It omits read-only/safety profile, pagination behavior, default-limit effects, and what happens with no filters applied.

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?

Three dense sentences with the resource and ordering front-loaded, then filters, then field meanings. Nearly every clause earns its place; the bracketed '[measured]' tag is slightly cryptic but compact.

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 does the work of explaining key return fields (address as account index, l1_address as wallet, age_s as snapshot age) and the sort contract. The main residual gaps are limit semantics and default no-filter behavior, which are minor for a read-only listing tool.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it documents coin (BTC example), side (long|short enum values not in schema), min_usd, max_dist_pct, and the sort modes ('distance' default vs 'value'). Only limit is left unexplained, and units for min_usd/max_dist_pct remain somewhat implicit.

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 resource and scope: leveraged positions on Lighter, with the exchange-reported liquidation price. The exchange name distinguishes it from the sibling get_hl_whales (Hyperliquid), so an agent can route between them without opening either schema. The sort direction is also stated, sharpening what the list represents.

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?

Usage is implied by the sort semantics ('closest to liquidation first') and the filter list, which signals a liquidation-proximity scan use case. However, no explicit when-to-use guidance is given, and it never names the obvious alternatives (get_hl_whales, get_lighter_liquidation_map) or states when this tool is the wrong choice.

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