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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses venue limitations, realized-vs-estimated data, feed-coverage reporting, failure behavior, and per-call cost. It does not mention rate limits, auth requirements, or data freshness, which keeps it from a 5.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds only essential distinctions: realized vs estimated, feed coverage, failure semantics, and cost. The long first sentence is dense but earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema or annotations, so the description must explain return content and behavior, which it does thoroughly: long/short counts, size, USD value, largest liquidations, hourly breakdown, price-band clearing, coverage, failure, and cost. An agent has enough to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents symbol, hours, and bucketPct. The description reinforces the meaning of the adjustable percentage bands and time window, but adds little parameter detail beyond what the schema provides.

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: recent forced liquidations for one asset's USDT perpetual on OKX. It explicitly distinguishes realized liquidations from estimated liquidation levels, which separates it from sibling tools like liquidation_risk.

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?

It gives clear context for when this tool applies (recent realized liquidations on OKX USDT perpetuals) and implicitly routes agents away from estimated-liquidation tools. It does not explicitly name the alternative or state when not to use it, but the scope is sufficiently clear.

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