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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations by disclosing per-caller pacing (1 bucket per 5s for x402/prepaid pack, 1 per 10s for pass keys, except while has_more), the 429 + Retry-After behavior for early calls, the fact that rejected calls are never billed, the per-call price of 0.001 USDC, and the accepted payment chains. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by payload, then pacing/billing. The pacing sentence is a long run-on but every clause (intervals, exception, 429, no billing, price, chains) carries distinct information, so little is wasted.

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 paid, rate-limited streaming feed this covers the essentials an agent must know: what each bucket contains, cursor continuity, rate limits per key type, error handling, and cost. An output schema exists, yet the description still summarizes the shape usefully without being redundant.

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%, so the schema already documents next, since, and symbols with format and defaults. The description only alludes to the cursor ('from a gap-free cursor') and adds no syntax, ordering, or constraint detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('liquidation pressure feed') and details the payload precisely: 5-second buckets per symbol of long/short USD liquidated across venues, dominant side, and pressure versus the symbol's baseline. However, it never distinguishes itself from closely-named siblings such as get_liq_pulse, get_recent_liquidations, or get_liq_history, so an agent cannot route between them from this text alone.

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?

'Use when an agent needs liquidation pressure as it happens' gives a clear real-time trigger and implicitly separates it from the historical siblings by temporal framing. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use it (e.g. for historical backfill use get_liq_history), so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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