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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It usefully discloses the return content: totals split by long/short, per-symbol and per-exchange breakdowns, and a 30-min time series. However, it does not clarify edge cases such as how the 'minutes' window interacts with the fixed 1h/4h/12h/24h sub-windows, or any limitations.

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 a single efficient sentence, front-loads the main purpose, and enumerates the output components without fluff. Every clause contributes useful information.

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 there is no output schema spend no annotations, the description does a reasonable job listing return categories. However, it omits enough information about the minutes parameter's boundaries and the relationship between the requested window and the fixed 1h/4h/12h/24h buckets to be fully complete for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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. It adds meaning by stating stats are 'over the last `minutes`', connecting the parameter to the query window. Yet it offers no range, units beyond the name, or guidance on valid values, leaving some ambiguity about how minutes interacts with the fixed sub-windows.

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 identifies an aggregated market-wide liquidation summary with specific breakdowns (long/short totals, per-symbol, per-exchange, time series). It partially distinguishes itself from siblings like get_liquidations or get_liquidation_map by emphasizing 'summary' and 'market-wide', though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to choose this tool over the many liquidation-related siblings. The description implies it is for broad market-wide summary use rather than maps or cascades, but it never states exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions.

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