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

Adds substantial behavioral detail beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint: feed is sampled by Binance (max 1/symbol/second), data is buffered on a gateway VPS, and in case of stream/gateway issues the tool still returns whatever data is available with a 'degraded' flag rather than silently returning empty. This is exactly the kind of contextual behavioral context that helps an agent trust and interpret results.

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?

Four concise sentences: the first states the main function, followed by filtering capabilities, sampling caveat, distinction from REST tools, and degraded-mode behavior. No unnecessary text; all information is operationally relevant.

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?

Covers the essential invocation context: data source (WebSocket stream), freshness, filtering, sampling, and degraded behavior. The main gap is the absence of a description of the return shape/fields, but the 'detail' parameter in the schema references docs/tool_response_reference.md, and the parameter enum describes summary vs full output, mitigating this gap.

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 describes 'detail' and 'symbol', and the description adds that filtering is per symbol and minimal notional, clarifying the purpose of those parameters. 'limit' and 'minNotionalUsd' are not explicitly described in the description, but their meaning is reasonably inferable from names/defaults. Description partially compensates for the 50% schema coverage.

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?

Description states a specific verb+resource: 'Likuidasi paksa (forced liquidation) terbaru market-wide dari WebSocket stream Binance'. It explicitly distinguishes this from REST tools by emphasizing it returns newly occurred events, not periodic snapshots. This differentiates it from siblings like binance_get_all_force_orders.

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?

Gives clear usage context: this tool is for events that just happened (seconds-to-minutes ago), distinguishing it from periodic snapshot tools. It says 'Beda dari tool REST lain' and describes streaming-sourced real-time behavior, but does not explicitly name a specific alternative or give a when-not-to-use condition.

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