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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining return content: totals, split by coin or exchange, largest liquidations of the last hour, and a page URL.

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 front-loads the core metric and time windows, then supplies usage examples, then summarizes the return payload. It is dense but 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description supplies enough return-shape detail and usage examples for an agent to invoke it correctly. Nothing essential is missing.

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 coin parameter is fully documented in the schema with allowed values and omission behavior. The description reinforces that omission means whole market and that the output split changes for one coin, but it does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific measure ('How much was liquidated') with scope details: last 24 hours, last hour, longs vs shorts, and whole market vs one coin. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling liquidation_map tool.

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 provides concrete example questions such as 'how much was liquidated today' and 'were longs or shorts liquidated', which clearly signals when the tool is appropriate. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of full alternative guidance.

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