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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: totals are a floor because Binance and Bitget throttle their feeds, and side=long means longs were liquidated. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or response shape, but the data-quality caveat is a meaningful disclosure beyond structured fields.

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?

Information-dense and front-loaded: the core purpose leads, then return shape, then the sibling exclusions, then the parameter range. It is long for one parameter and the bracketed "[measured, PAST]" tag is slightly cryptic, but nearly every clause earns its place.

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 single-optional-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely sufficient: it defines the returned aggregates, the parameter range, and a known accuracy limitation. The only real gap is the concrete response structure, which is a minor omission given the enumerated breakdowns.

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 `minutes` param only declares type and default. The description compensates by giving the valid range "minutes: 1 to 1440" and clarifying its role (window for by_symbol/by_exchange totals), which is genuine added meaning over the bare schema.

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 verb and resource — TOTALS of past liquidations — and enumerates the exact breakdowns returned (rekt 1h/4h/12h/24h split long/short, by_symbol, by_exchange, 30-minute series). It differentiates itself from named siblings (get_liquidations, get_liquidation_cascades, *_liquidation_map), so an agent can select it without opening any 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?

It explicitly names the selection condition ("The one to call for 'how much was liquidated'") and rules out the alternatives with reasons: no individual orders (get_liquidations), no events (get_liquidation_cascades), and not open positions (the *_liquidation_map tools). This is explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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