pulse_top_liquidators

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It indicates the tool returns data (implied read-only) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, or permissions. The absence of contradiction with annotations is neutral.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that state the purpose, list return fields, and give a usage context. No unnecessary words.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's output and purpose. It could mention ranking criteria or time frame, but overall covers the essentials.

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% (all parameters described in schema). The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema for the three parameters (useToonFormat, limit, offset), so baseline score applies.

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 finds wallets that profit from liquidating forced closes, lists specific return fields, and provides a concrete use case ('who is the biggest backstop/liquidation player?'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pulse_backstop_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 includes a direct use case for the tool, but does not explicitly mention when to avoid using it or suggest alternative tools among the many siblings.

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