Backstop Liquidation Events

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job was to add behavioral context. It adds meaningful detail: results are ranked by loss, the default threshold is $10k+ losses, and it lists the exact liquidation attributes returned. This goes beyond annotation hints 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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by return fields, use case, and default threshold. Every sentence adds value, and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

This is a read-only query tool with no output schema, and the description covers purpose, ranking behavior, returned fields, and default filter. Combined with the annotations and fully described parameters, an agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds a little extra by restating the default $10k+ loss threshold, which maps to maxRealizedPnl, but it does not meaningfully extend parameter understanding 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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('most catastrophic individual liquidations across Hyperliquid'), and a ranking criterion ('ranked by loss'). It also enumerates the returned fields, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from related live liquidation tools.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'Use for “who got wrecked hardest?” and post-mortem analysis.' It does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the provided context is enough to guide an agent toward it for catastrophic-liquidation queries.

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