chainvectorLiquidationHeatmap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that clusters are 'estimated' and built from OI/leverage distributions, but it does not clarify whether this is a real-time or historical read-only operation, nor any limitations such as data recency or accuracy caveats.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence defines what the tool does, the second explains how to interpret it, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 the tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description conveys the core output structure (price bins x long/short USD) and interpretation. It could be more explicit about the exact return format, but the essentials are covered.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (symbol and window). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, which is acceptable but not an enhancement.

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 provides a liquidation heatmap with estimated resting liquidation clusters, specified as price bins by long/short USD, built from OI and leverage distributions. This defines the resource and output scope, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'get'.

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 clear usage context: price gravitates toward dense clusters, making them natural targets and danger zones for stop placement. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use is evident.

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