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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the heatmap is 'modeled' and 'estimated' rather than observed, and it reveals the output shape (grid plus price path). However, it says nothing about data sourcing, update cadence, availability constraints, or how 'estimates' are derived, leaving meaningful behavioral uncertainty.

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-loaded: it opens with the core resource, adds the key structural detail (grid and price path), then lists range options. Both sentences carry useful information with no filler.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description does explain the return shape, which helps. But it is incomplete in context: it does not clarify how 'modeled' differs from sibling liquidation tools, does not document symbol/exchange semantics, and provides no interpretation guidance for the grid intensity values. These are meaningful gaps for a 3-parameter tool in a crowded sibling group.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It only explains 'range' with explicit allowed values ('12h | 1d | 3d | 7d'). 'symbol' and 'exchange' are left entirely undocumented—no format, no allowed values, no default semantics beyond the schema's own 'default: all'.

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 ('modeled liquidation heatmap') and adds the output structure ('estimated cluster intensity per price bin over time (grid[time][bin]) with the price path'). It is more than a tautology and conveys what the tool returns. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_liquidation_map or get_hl_liquidation_map, relying on 'modeled' to imply a distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many liquidation-related siblings, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives. The description only lists range options; it never tells an agent what scenarios call for this modeled heatmap rather than a raw liquidation map or liquidation summary.

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