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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuinely useful context: the data comes from the provider's own nodes and Hyperliquid's public API has no liquidation feed, which explains why this tool exists and implies coverage limits. It stops short of disclosing ordering, retention window, or event latency.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by a one-clause justification of its provenance. No filler and nothing repeated from the name or 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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to explain scope and origin, which it does. The remaining gap is behavioral detail an agent would want for a time-series feed — ordering (newest first?) and how far back events go.

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% and the market parameter's accepted formats and the limit range are fully documented in-schema. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific resource (liquidation events on a Hyperliquid perp) and enumerates the returned fields (price, size, side, liquidated wallet), which distinguishes it from aggregate siblings like get_liquidation_summary. It never names those siblings, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied by the noun phrase 'Liquidations ... : price, size, side and the liquidated wallet' — an agent can infer this is the raw-event tool versus the summary/levels tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement.

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