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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about data scope and plan limitations: keyless access gives free pairs for the last 3 hours, Starter covers every streamed pair, and Pro adds 12-hour and projected grids. It also notes the data is descriptive market data only.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core concept, then moves to usage scenarios, plan tiers, and alternative tools. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy or filler.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, how it differs from related tools, data availability by plan, and the fact that it is read-only descriptive data. This is complete for an agent to select and call the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description only adds that the grid is for 'one pair,' which aligns with the pair/coin parameters but does not meaningfully extend the schema's documentation.

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's function: a realized liquidation heat grid for one pair, broken down by price band in 5-minute columns, with the hottest cell named. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting with liq_zones and liquidations.

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 gives explicit use cases: 'where did the liquidations cluster today' and 'which price band got hit hardest'. It also provides clear routing guidance, directing the agent to liq_zones for projected levels and to liquidations for individual events.

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