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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it flags the data as 'modeled' (estimated), warns the answer is large (~35,000 numbers), and explains the 'level disappears once price trades through it' semantics. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for an unannotated tool.

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?

Dense but disciplined — the bracketed tag front-loads type/risk/exchange/over-time, then format, usage routing, size warning, and param values each earn their place. Slightly crammed into one block, but no filler sentences.

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 3 parameters, the description fully explains the return structure (grid dimensioned by time bins and price bins, plus bins and price arrays) and how levels behave over time. Nothing needed to call it correctly is 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it does: it documents symbol format (BASEUSDT), exchange values (all | binance | bybit | okx), and range values (12h | 1d | 3d | 7d) that are absent from the schema. All three parameters gain meaning beyond the bare typed properties.

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 heatmap) and defines it precisely as the time-series counterpart of get_liquidation_map, spelling out the grid[t][b], bins[b], and price[t] structure. An agent can distinguish it from get_liquidation_map without opening either 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?

Explicitly says 'Call this only to see WHEN a cluster formed and whether it survived' and names the alternative get_liquidation_map for the current picture, adding that it is a far smaller answer. Both when-to-use and the exclusion are stated.

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