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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description reveals critical behavioral traits: some coins return modeled estimates with symmetric long/short totals, provenance differs by coin, and the field structure is disclosed. It also notes it mirrors REST /liqmap/{coin}, adding transparency beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 information-dense but efficiently front-loaded with the core purpose and [DRILL-DOWN] tag. Every sentence contributes value, though the provenance explanation is lengthy and could be tightened. Still, it's well-structured and not verbose.

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 is remarkably complete. It explains the output semantics (bins, imbalance, top zones), the two data modes (observed vs modeled), how to interpret the results, and the source equivalence to a REST endpoint. 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?

The schema only defines 'coin' as a string, but the description adds meaning by giving examples ('BTC', 'ETH') and clarifying it's a coin symbol rather than a name. It also provides context that the same coin may return different data (observed vs modeled) based on whether it has a DEX book, which helps interpret the parameter's effect.

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 precisely states the tool produces a liquidation map for a coin, binned into price clusters, and details exactly what it shows (long/short imbalance, nearest clusters, top zones). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_liquidity_map by focusing specifically on liquidations and referencing its role as the feed for other tools.

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 strong contextual guidance: labels it a 'DRILL-DOWN' tool, explains it targets one coin, and warns that provenance varies by coin with explicit instruction to read observed/modeled fields. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of the top score.

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