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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the reconstruction method (Borrow events + one multicall), the health threshold logic, and the crucial commercial behavior — $0.06 per call via x402, prepaid x-credit-token header for unlimited calls, no free tier, no API key. Cost/auth requirements are exactly the context an agent needs to avoid failed calls.

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?

Front-loaded with the core question, then method, then parameters, then pricing — a sensible order, and most sentences carry information. It is dense with em-dash clauses and one throwaway line ('Not financial advice'), which keeps it just short of maximally tight.

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 read-only feed with an output schema (so return values needn't be spelled out) and both params documented, the description covers everything an agent needs: scope, method, defaults, thresholds, and payment/auth. Nothing material is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real value the schema lacks: concrete defaults for both optional params (market defaults cbBTC/USDC, maxHealth defaults 1.1). It doesn't explain the market-id format or accepted string form for maxHealth, so it stops at 4.

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 up front — identifying which Base Morpho positions are liquidatable right now — and names the exact scope (active borrower set on a Morpho Blue market). This is clearly distinct from single-position siblings like morpho_health or the generic position_health, and an agent can tell what it gets without opening a schema.

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?

Declares the intended caller (liquidator / MEV searchers) and the conditions the output covers (health <= 1.0 vs one small move away), which gives clear usage context. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when *not* to use it, so it doesn't reach the explicit routing of a 5.

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