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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does a solid job: it describes the aggregation logic, venue coverage, per-symbol output fields, and importantly the $0.02 USDC per-call cost on x402/Solana mainnet. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but this is a get operation with no mutation language and no destructive hints.

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?

Four sentences, each adding value: what is returned, per-symbol breakdown, positioning for urgency, and cost/payment method. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple tool with 2 optional fully-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains return fields, data universe, venue coverage, and monetization. An agent can select and invoke this tool correctly without needing further context.

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 both limit and window_min already have clear descriptions with ranges and defaults. The tool description adds little beyond 'top symbols' and 'RIGHT NOW', so it does not need to compensate; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb+resource: top symbols ranked by liquidation USD across ~600 USDT perps on Bybit, OKX, and Binance. It enumerates per-symbol fields (total liquidated, long/short split, biggest print, venue count, dominant side), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling liquidation tools like get_last_liquidation or get_liquidation_stats.

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 phrasing 'What is blowing up RIGHT NOW' and 'fastest read on where leverage is being flushed' implies usage for urgent liquidation monitoring, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison with alternatives. Among many liquidation-related siblings, the agent has to infer which one to pick.

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