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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds 'public research data' and 'no account access, no order placement or fund transfers,' which reinforces read-only behavior and adds a bit of context about permissions. However, it does not describe rate limits, pagination, or other behavioral details beyond what annotations cover.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by safety and advisory notes. It consists of four short sentences, each adding distinct information. No unnecessary repetition, though some content (e.g., read-only) duplicates annotations.

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 presence of an output schema (as indicated), the description does not need to explain return format. With simple parameters and clear annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Minor omissions like rate limits do not significantly hinder usability.

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 100%, with each parameter (range, symbol, exchange) having its own description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it relies on the schema. According to the baseline for high coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Liquidation density by symbol and price buckets.' This is clear and distinct from other platformmetrics siblings like bridge metrics or orderbook depth. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it doesn't fully satisfy the 'distinguishes from siblings' criterion.

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 implies usage when you need liquidation density data, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions. Phrases like 'Read-only public research data' clarify safe usage but not selection criteria.

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