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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: exact price, the billing rule that unknown/empty/upstream errors are not charged, the upstream source limitation (OKX only, Bybit blocked), and the fact that the response contains x402 payment requirements plus a URL rather than the raw data. It even offers a free sample URL for pre-flight verification.

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?

Everything is packed into one dense, information-rich block with essentially no filler; pricing, purpose, window, billing rules, and sample URL each carry weight. The only structural weakness is that the price leads ahead of the actual purpose, so the core verb+resource arrives second.

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 x402 endpoint with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs before calling: cost, billing failure modes, upstream coverage, and the shape of the response. What's missing is result-level context — whether this is a flat list, an aggregate count, or whether there's a cap on returned liquidations — which matters for a time-window query.

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 50% — symbol is documented, hours is not. The description fills that gap by giving the hours range and, importantly, the default of 1, which the schema does not encode anywhere. It also clarifies that the symbol refers to an OKX USDT-SWAP ticker, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare pattern and 'Ticker, e.g. BTC'.

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 resource and scope: 'recent OKX USDT-SWAP public liquidations for one symbol.' Exchange (OKX), instrument class (USDT-SWAP), and granularity (per symbol) are all stated, so an agent can distinguish this from every sibling on the list at a glance.

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 implies usage through 'recent ... liquidations for one symbol' and supplies a time window with a default, but never states when to reach for this versus related market-data siblings such as get_perps, get_candles, or get_oi_history. The 'Bybit is geo-blocked from this host' note is an environmental constraint rather than routing guidance, so the agent must infer that this is the only liquidation source available.

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