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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining provenance varies by coin (observed vs modeled), warning to always read the returned `observed` / `modeled` / `method` fields, and noting that modeled long/short totals are symmetric by construction. This is critical behavioral nuance that fully discloses how to interpret results, exceeding what annotations provide.

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 densely informative but front-loaded with the core purpose first ('Liquidation map for a coin'), followed by output details, provenance caveats, and REST equivalence. Every sentence adds value—function, output fields, warnings, and variants—without fluff, making it compact yet comprehensive.

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 simple schema (one required param) and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers inputs, outputs, and special cases, including the observed/modeled distinction and the need to read method fields. It provides everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly, and even notes the REST equivalent for cross-referencing.

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 has only a single `coin` string parameter, and the description adds concrete examples ('BTC', 'ETH') plus the crucial caveat that the coin determines whether the map is observed or modeled. With schema coverage at 0%, the description compensates adequately for the single, self-explanatory parameter, though it does not formally document parameter constraints or case sensitivity.

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: it returns a liquidation map for a coin, binned into price clusters, with long/short imbalance, nearest dense clusters, and top zones. It distinguishes itself from siblings via the [DRILL-DOWN] tag and references to positioning's liq_magnet and market_state, making its specific role unambiguous.

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 description provides clear context by noting it is the same feed that powers positioning and market_state, and identifies the same data as REST /liqmap/{coin}. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with the similarly named sibling get_liquidity_map or list when to use one over the other, leaving some room for interpretation.

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