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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive safety, and the description adds a genuinely important trait beyond that: the output is a model estimated from aggregate open interest with an assumed leverage mix, not an actual position record. It does not cover latency, caching, or data-age behavior for the brief mode, so it stops short of 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?

Purpose and the model caveat are front-loaded and every sentence carries information, but the 'in detail "full"' clause is wedged mid-sentence and makes the return-shape description harder to parse than it needs to be.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and mostly does: clusters with price, distance and size, plus the wider range and liquidation amounts in full mode. The modeled/estimated nature is disclosed; minor gaps remain on ordering and how the leverage mix assumption is chosen.

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 value the schema lacks: it states that 'full' widens the range and surfaces amounts liquidated on 5/10/15% moves, which tells the agent when the mode is worth requesting.

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 — returns liquidation levels above and below the current price for one Hyperliquid perpetual market — and the scope (single market, current price anchored) clearly separates it from siblings like get_funding_rates or get_orderflow_snapshot.

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?

Gives explicit triggering conditions: asks where liquidations sit around the price, or how much could be liquidated on a move of a given size. It does not name when-not or alternative tools, but the sibling set covers clearly different topics, so no real ambiguity is left.

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