Recent liquidations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying that event counts vs dollar amounts are separate, and that sell-side events correspond to long liquidations. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 mostly concise, with three sentences of useful content followed by a promotional link. The marketing sentence ('More depth on a developer plan') does not earn its place for an agent selecting a tool, making the structure slightly cluttered.

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 simple tool (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the main output semantics (counts vs USD) but leaves gaps: no explanation of the 'pair' parameter format, no mention of 'limit', and no return value structure. It is adequate but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining parameters. It mentions 'pair' conceptually, but does not explain the format or expected values. The 'limit' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving its purpose and constraints unclear.

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 'Recent liquidation trades for a pair with the long and short breakdown', which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It explains the meaning of long vs short liquidations, adding clarity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like whale_trades, so it falls short of a 5.

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: use this tool for recent liquidation data. It says 'Descriptive market data only', suggesting it's for informational purposes. But it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or any exclusions, so guidance is only implied.

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