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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the output fields (side, price, qty) and the time range, which is useful, but it does not mention aggregation details, data freshness, potential pagination, or any limitations beyond the minutes range. It is not contradictory, but it is not rich enough for a 4.

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 two sentences: the first states the primary function and the second clarifies the 'side' semantics. It is front-loaded with the action and result fields, and every sentence earns its place without redundancy. Perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no required fields, and an output schema presumably covering return structure), the description covers the essential aspects: what data is returned, the time window meaning, and the interpretation of a key field. It does not elaborate on exchange coverage or data latency, but these are likely minor for an agent that can inspect the output schema. A 4 is appropriate.

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?

The schema has only one parameter, 'minutes', with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that it specifies the trailing time window and constrains it to 1-1440. It also clarifies the 'side' field in the output, which is not a parameter but aids understanding of the result. This is sufficient for a simple single-parameter tool.

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 clearly states the tool returns recent liquidation events with side, price, and qty across exchanges over a specified time window. It defines the 'side' field meaning, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like liquidation maps or cascades that focus on spatial or cascade analysis. The verb 'get' plus resource 'liquidation events' is specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage: use this to retrieve raw liquidation events for a given number of minutes (1-1440). It clearly defines the time range and the meaning of 'side', giving context. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or mention when to prefer this over get_liquidations_summary or get_liquidation_map, so it falls short of a 5.

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