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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description's job is to add context — which it does by disclosing the methodology (open interest changes across exchanges plus typical leverage), the 'estimated' nature of the values, and the filtering behavior ('only bins with liquidity are returned'). It stops short of describing error cases or what an empty result means.

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?

Three tight sentences, scope first, then the interpretive rule, then the return-filter caveat. Zero redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it does so adequately (USD per price bin, ±12% window, sparse bins omitted). It could still say something about units or bin granularity, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 both parameters (symbol, days enum) are already documented in the schema. The description only adds that the scope is 'one pair' and the ±12% band, which is output semantics rather than parameter guidance; baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Estimated USD of long and short liquidations per price bin within ±12% of the current price for one pair') and adds the semantic orientation rule (longs below price, shorts above) that makes it distinguishable from price-structure siblings like get_order_book_walls. An agent can tell what it returns without opening the 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?

The scope is clear ('for one pair', ±12% band), which implies when the tool is applicable, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or comparison against siblings such as get_order_book_walls or get_verdict. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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