live_liquidation_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the output but does not explicitly state whether it is a read-only operation, or mention authorization, rate limits, or data freshness. For a data retrieval tool, the behavioral traits are reasonably implied, but additional details would improve 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 sentences: the first clearly states the purpose and best-use context, the second lists the key outputs. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 only 3 optional parameters, no required parameters, and no output schema. The description covers the high-level return fields and filtering options. It does not address pagination, limits, or performance for large time windows, but for a summary tool, the given information is largely sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some context by explaining the return format (compact toon format vs standard JSON) and listing the summary components, which helps understand the parameter effects. However, it does not significantly extend beyond the schema.

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 it 'Get an aggregated liquidation summary over a time window' and lists specific outputs (event count, penalty fees, closed PnL, per-coin rollups, liquidation timeline). It also claims it's 'the best liquidation tool for summaries, rankings, and trend analysis,' which distinguishes it from siblings like live_liquidation_heatmap and live_recent_liquidations.

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 provides clear usage context by stating it is 'best for summaries, rankings, and trend analysis.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for individual liquidation events) or suggest alternative tools. This is still adequate for guiding an AI agent.

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