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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that the output is aggregated long-vs-short USD over the latest period, partly compensating for the missing output schema, but says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or refresh cadence.

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?

One front-loaded sentence plus a short example; no filler. The example is somewhat redundant with the schema's examples array, which keeps it from a 5.

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 no output schema and rich parameter docs, the description does mention what is returned (aggregated long/short liquidation USD for the latest period), which is the key missing piece. It stops short of describing the response shape or how the exchange/interval parameters change the aggregation.

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 documents symbol, exchange, interval, and _apiKey, so the baseline is 3. The description's example only echoes the symbol parameter and adds no syntax or default information beyond the schema.

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 resource and scope: recent liquidations aggregated as long vs short USD over the latest period. That clearly distinguishes it from siblings like coinglass_funding_rate, coinglass_open_interest, and coinglass_long_short_ratio, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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 example invocation; there is no statement of when to prefer this tool over the sibling Coinglass metrics or any exclusions. An agent can infer it fetches liquidation data but gets no routing guidance.

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