live_liquidation_heatmap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool's output (liquidation clusters) but does not disclose frequency of updates, computational cost, or side effects. It implies read-only but lacks explicit behavioral detail.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. First sentence defines action and scope; second explains value. Front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema is provided, yet the description does not specify the return structure (e.g., list of price levels and amounts). It mentions compact format in parameters but not in description. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, more detail on output would be helpful.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions that are clear. The description adds context about the heatmap's significance but no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 action ('Get a liquidation heatmap for any coin'), the resource (liquidation clusters across price levels), and differentiates from siblings by claiming unique data. This is specific and non-tautological.

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?

It implies use for identifying support/resistance and squeeze zones but does not explicitly state when to use over alternatives or when not to use. No direct comparison to sibling tools like live_liquidation_summary.

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