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 the 15-minute delay, the limited asset universe, and the 'taster' nature of the free offering. It does not detail output format or empty-result behavior, but for a zero-parameter read-only lookup the essential behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded with the key selling point and scope. The main redundancy is the word 'FREE' appearing at the start and 'Free.' at the end, which costs a little efficiency but does not obscure meaning.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential operational context: asset coverage, delay, free tier, and the real-time alternative. It is slightly ambiguous whether the response is one liquidation per asset or a single aggregate, but the simplicity of the tool keeps this from being a major 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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema has no properties, so there is nothing to document. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description is not expected to add parameter-level semantics, and it does not need to.

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 returns the last liquidation for a named set of assets (SOL, BTC, ETH, XRP, DOGE), and immediately distinguishes itself from the real-time sibling get_recent_liquidations. The scope and limitation (15-min delayed, free taster) make the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool versus the alternative: use get_last_liquidation for the free delayed snapshot, and get_recent_liquidations for real-time data. This direct routing to a named sibling is exactly the guidance agents need.

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