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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the return content is spatial zones with side and strength, and explicitly excludes prices or amounts. It says nothing about pagination, freshness, or behavior when the map is empty.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the resource plus the negative scoping constraint are both front-loaded. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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 must convey what comes back, and it does: zones, clustering side, strength, and the explicit absence of prices/amounts. Combined with a fully documented schema and read-only annotations, that is nearly enough; only edge cases (empty map, staleness, leverage filter interaction) are unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter carries its own English description including defaults ('without it, 1h'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no semantics for moneda, minima, horizonte, antiguedad or apalancamiento beyond what the schema already supplies.

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 the resource precisely (liquidation map zones) and the assets covered (Bitcoin or Ethereum), and enumerates what the output answers: where clusters are, which side, how strong. It also draws a hard boundary ('No prices or amounts'), so the agent knows this is not a price/volume tool. Sibling differentiation is only implicit — no sibling is named.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named; the only routing signal is the implicit exclusion of price data. An agent must infer from the purpose alone whether to call this instead of, say, funding.

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