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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that this is a historical read operation, describes the data composition, discloses the cost per call, and mentions the x402/Solana mainnet payment context. It does not describe pagination or exact response formatting, but it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond a bare tool name.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. The core meaning is front-loaded, the comparison to the live alert tool is concise, and the cost/payment detail is included without bloating the text.

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?

The description covers purpose, data elements, time window, and cost, which is strong given the absence of an output schema and annotations. It names the key response fields the agent can expect, though it stops short of documenting the full return shape or exact payment/authorization mechanics.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds context about event contents and the 72h lookback window, but it does not meaningfully enrich gap_s, scope, or min_usd beyond what the input schema already states.

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: it reconstructs PAST liquidation cascades from the tape and defines them as clustered same-side flush events with start/end, prints, USD total, and peak print. It also distinguishes itself from get_cascade_alert, so an agent can tell it apart from the nearest sibling.

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 explicitly contrasts with get_cascade_alert: 'get_cascade_alert tells you NOW; this tells you what already happened, up to 72h back.' This provides clear context for when to choose historical data over live alerts, though it does not cover exclusions relative to other cascade tools like forecast or scan.

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