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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: it returns one current snapshot rather than history, names the upstream sources, and discloses the fallback behavior for an unknown market (returns the valid list). It doesn't cover rate limits or snapshot staleness, keeping it below 5.

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 what is measured and where, followed by usage examples and return shape — a sensible order. Slightly redundant: Hyperliquid appears both as a source and again inside the exchange list, and the parenthetical venue catalogs are long for the value they add.

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-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers sources, snapshot semantics, return contents and error behavior — enough to call it correctly. The one real omission is disambiguation from the 'liquidations' sibling.

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% and the single 'coin' parameter is already documented richly (tickers, Hyperliquid markets, accepted names and pair forms). The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond that, so 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?

Specific: it states the exact data returned (USD long liquidations below price, shorts above, nearest clusters) and the venues covered. However, a sibling tool literally named 'liquidations' exists and the description never explains how this differs from it, so an agent must guess between 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?

Gives three concrete example questions ('where are the liquidation levels for BTC', 'where do longs get liquidated', 'what is the nearest liquidation cluster') that clearly anchor the use case. It stops short of exclusions or naming the sibling 'liquidations' as the alternative for historical/aggregate data.

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