get_liquidations

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, destructive, idempotent, and openWorld hints. The description adds useful context: returned fields (addresses, price, size, side, PnL), data availability from May 2025, and WebSocket alternative. No contradictions, and adds value beyond annotations.

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 three concise sentences: first states purpose and output, second notes data availability, third mentions WebSocket alternative. Front-loaded and no wasted words.

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 an output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail return structure. It covers key fields, data availability, and a real-time alternative. However, it could explicitly differentiate from get_liquidations_by_user for completeness.

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?

Input schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions, so schema_description_coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add parameter-level details. It lists return fields but not parameter specifics. 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 clearly states the tool gets liquidation history for a specific coin over a time range. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_liquidations_by_user (by user) and get_liquidation_volume, and mentions WebSocket for real-time data.

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 historical use and contrasts with real-time WebSocket. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like get_liquidations_by_user or get_liquidation_volume. It provides clear context for the main use case.

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