chainvectorCascadeRisk

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

With no annotations, the description explains the tool's core behavior: it outputs a risk score and indicates which side would be force-closed. It also explains the score's composition. However, it doesn't mention update frequency, latency, or whether the score is historical or real-time, which would be useful but not critical.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then wraps up with actionable trading guidance. Every word earns its place — no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given no annotations or output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns (risk score and side) and why it matters. It could be more precise about interpreting the 0-100 scale or defining 'exhausting cascade,' but it is fundamentally complete for an AI agent to decide when to use it.

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?

The only parameter 'symbol' is fully described in the schema (default BTC, base asset). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, but the schema already provides 100% coverage, so the baseline of 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 computes a 0-100 composite liquidation cascade risk score, specifying the components (recent liq burst/rate, OI change, leverage proxy) and the cascade_side output. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like chainvectorLiquidations or chainvectorRiskIndex.

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 gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance ('Never enter WITH a likely cascade against you') and when-to-use as a signal ('an exhausting cascade is the cascade-fade setup'). This tells an agent exactly when to consult this tool before trading.

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