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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by specifying it pertains to forced margin liquidations, the data fields per row (pair symbol, timestamp, size, price), and the optional filter parameters. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the nature of the data.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the most critical information (what it is and the endpoint), followed by data row details and parameters. Every word contributes value; no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and strong annotations, the description provides sufficient context: what data is returned, what question it answers, and the available filters. It lacks explicit details on sort order semantics or pagination, but these are minor gaps for a historical feed with optional parameters.

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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It names all four parameters (start, end, limit, sort) and gives units for start/end as 'ms epoch'. However, it does not explicitly explain what each parameter does (e.g., start/end as range, limit as row count, sort as ordering) beyond implying they are options. The example in the schema (sort: -1, limit: 20) provides a hint but not full semantics.

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 clearly states it is the 'historical feed of forced margin liquidations across Bitfinex pairs' and explicitly answers which positions got liquidated, when, and at what price. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like trades or candles by focusing specifically on liquidations.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (historical liquidation data on Bitfinex) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. The scope is well-defined enough that an agent would understand its purpose, but it stops short of explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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