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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the returned fields and the aggregation (long vs short totals, largest liquidations), but leaves out the most consequential behaviour: what 'recent' means as a time window, whether the feed is live or delayed, and whether the record set is capped.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that packs the venue, instrument and returned fields without filler. It is dense but readable; the only inefficiency is enumerating return fields that the output schema already covers.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description is not obligated to spell out return values, yet it does, which is helpful redundancy. The genuine gaps are the undefined time window for 'recent' and the undocumented `limit` semantics, both of which an agent needs in order to call this correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it only partially does: 'a coin's USDT perpetual on OKX' hints that `coin` selects the instrument (though not that it defaults to BTC). The `limit` parameter is never mentioned at all, and neither is its default of 50 or its interaction with the 'largest ones' aggregation.

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 names a specific resource (forced liquidations), a specific instrument (a coin's USDT perpetual) and a specific venue (OKX), so an agent can tell this apart from neighbours like perp_funding_rates or crypto_candles. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it should not be confused with, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives, and no prerequisites (e.g. 'use when you need liquidation cascades rather than price history'). Usage is only implied by the narrow scope of the resource, which is the definition of minimum-viable guidance.

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