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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior information: totals are a floor because Binance and Bitget throttle feeds, series use 30-minute buckets, and side=long means longs were liquidated. It stops short of disclosing freshness/latency or sampling behavior, which would push it higher.

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?

Front-loaded with the core identity in the first clause, and the sibling exclusions are parenthetical rather than sprawling paragraphs. The single dense block is efficient, though the run-on sentence with multiple bracketed lists takes effort to parse.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return shape — and it does: rekt totals split long/short across 1h/4h/12h/24h, per-symbol and per-exchange breakdowns, and 30-minute bucketed series. The throttling caveat gives the agent what it needs to interpret the numbers correctly.

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 100% with a single 'minutes' parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds the valid range (1 to 1440) and clarifies which parts of the response the window applies to (by_symbol and by_exchange over `minutes`), which is more than the schema's generic 'Look-back window'.

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 and resource ('TOTALS of liquidations that already happened') plus the three return shapes (rekt, by_symbol/by_exchange, series). It explicitly contrasts with get_liquidations, get_liquidation_cascades and the *_liquidation_map tools, so the agent can place it among siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: 'The one to call for "how much was liquidated"', then names what it does NOT cover and which sibling handles each of those cases (individual orders, events, open positions). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are stated.

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