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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine provenance ('recorded by OwlChart from the exchanges' public feeds') and disambiguates 'actually liquidated' from hypothesized levels, but says nothing about staleness, rate limits, or granularity.

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 with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is also part of why parameter detail is missing.

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, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the semantic meaning of the return (realized liquidations by side and time window). However, the complete absence of parameter documentation and any note on data granularity or limits leaves it only marginally sufficient.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It only conceptually gestures at 'a coin' and 'over the last hours' without explaining the coin identifier format (symbol vs pair vs id) or that hours defaults to 24 and caps at 168. This leaves real gaps for a 2-param tool.

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?

Specific verb+resource: it fetches long/short positions 'actually liquidated' for a coin over a time window, and names the source. This is clearly distinct from siblings like get_funding_rates or get_open_interest, though the description never explicitly contrasts them.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, no exclusions. The context of liquidations is implied by the topic, but an agent gets no help deciding between this and related derivatives tools such as get_open_interest or get_funding_rates.

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