chainvectorLiquidations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the nature of the data (forced-closure events, side, USD size) and the interpretive significance, but it does not disclose operational behaviors like return format, pagination, rate limits, or whether it is a read-only historical query. The content context adds value but stops short of full transparency.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence defines the tool's core function, and the second provides valuable trading context. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should compensate by explaining what the tool returns. It mentions side and USD size but omits other likely fields like venue and timestamp, and does not clarify whether the tape is historical or real-time. The parameters are well-documented in the schema, but operational details are missing, leaving the description only partially complete.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (from, limit, symbol), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as how 'from' and 'limit' interact or the default symbol behavior. It does mention 'venues' but that is not a parameter.

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 identifies the resource as a liquidation tape containing forced-closure events with side and USD size, which distinguishes it from other chainvector tools like open interest or funding. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', which makes the action less direct than ideal.

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 usage by noting that long liquidation clusters mark capitulation lows and short-liq clusters mark blow-off tops, giving traders a reason to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as chainvectorLiquidationHeatmap, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria.

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