Projected liquidation levels

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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses that data is modeled from leverage assumptions, is a projection rather than executed trades, and that the snapshot depth varies by plan (free vs developer). It also notes this is descriptive market data only, adding meaningful behavioral context.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the description includes promotional URL with UTM parameters and a somewhat redundant 'Descriptive market data only' clause. It is not overly long, but the URL and plan-upgrade marketing could be trimmed without losing essential tool guidance.

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 a simple one-parameter schema and no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It clarifies the data is a projection and varies by plan, but does not describe what fields the 'level book' contains (e.g., price levels, quantities, timestamps), leaving part of the response format to guesswork.

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 schema provides only a 'pair' property with no description or format hints. The description mentions 'one pair' but does not explain expected format (e.g., 'BTCUSD' vs 'btc_usd'), default behavior, or supported pairs. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter details.

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 tool as a projected liquidation level book for one pair, and explicitly distinguishes it from executed trades. This differentiates it from the sibling 'liquidations' tool, which likely shows actual liquidation events.

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 use for viewing projected liquidation levels and notes plan-based access differences, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like 'liquidations' or 'market_snapshot'. No direct when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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