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

The annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the response covers only the last 60 minutes, 'declines with the tape age if our recording is stale', and the call costs 0.001 USDC via x402 on Solana or Base. This cost and staleness disclosure is exactly the kind of operational behavior 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?

The description is two compact sentences with no redundant filler. The most important usage signal is front-loaded, and every remaining clause (output contents, staleness behavior, cost) adds distinct value.

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 parameterless, read-only tool with an output schema, the description is fully sufficient: it states when to call, what the response will contain, the time window, the staleness caveat, and the cost. No critical operational detail is missing for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is complete, so there is nothing semantically ambiguous. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, the description does not need to add parameter detail; it already communicates the time window and output scope.

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 opens with a clear trigger ('Use when an agent needs to know what is being liquidated right now') and specifies the resource: the last 60 minutes of USDT perp liquidations across every recorded symbol. It also differentiates from siblings by naming the response contents (total USD, long/short split, prints, top 5 symbols), so an agent can distinguish it from get_last_liquidation, get_liq_history, or get_liq_heatmap.

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 'Use when' phrasing gives explicit context for when to call this tool, and the 60-minute window plus USDT perp scope clarifies its boundary. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough to route an agent correctly among the many liquidation-related siblings.

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