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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it is computed from 'our own multi-venue liquidation tape' and costs 0.05 USDC per call via x402 across five specific chains, which is real payment/auth information not in the structured fields.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and scope, followed by the data source and cost. No filler; every clause carries information (scope, output fields, provenance, price).

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, return values need not be re-explained, and the description covers purpose, scope, provenance, and cost. It is essentially complete; only minor gaps remain (e.g., how the window/severity thresholds interact), which the schema largely absorbs.

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 all three params (window, min_usd, min_events) are fully documented with defaults and ranges in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Liquidation cascade scan across EVERY USDT perp') and explicitly carves out scope versus other tools with 'not just the majors', then lists the returned dimensions (symbol, side liquidated, USD total, prints, duration, severity). An agent can tell this is a full-universe scan rather than a majors-only feed.

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 'not just the majors' phrasing implies when to prefer this over a narrower feed, but it names no alternative among the many sibling liquidation tools (get_liq_feed, get_liquidation_stats, get_cascade_history, get_recent_liquidations, etc.). Usage is implied rather than stated, leaving the agent to guess which sibling to pick.

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