botindex_hl_liquidation_heatmap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output type (heatmap) and purpose (prediction), but fails to detail critical traits such as data sources, update frequency, accuracy limitations, or the '$0.05' cost implication. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and constraints.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core function in the first phrase. The additional detail about prediction and cost is relevant, though the '$0.05' could be clarified. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste, earning a high score.

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 tool's complexity (predictive financial analysis), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and output type but misses details on data sources, format, reliability, and cost implications. This is adequate for a no-parameter tool but leaves room for improvement in behavioral context.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately avoids discussing parameters, focusing instead on the tool's function. A baseline of 4 is assigned since the schema fully covers parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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's purpose: generating a 'liquidation cluster heatmap by price level' for predicting support/resistance zones. It specifies the resource (heatmap) and function (predicting zones), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'botindex_hl_correlation_matrix' or 'botindex_hl_whale_alerts', which keeps it from a perfect score.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. While the description implies usage for predicting support/resistance zones in financial contexts, it lacks specific scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'botindex_hl_coin_analytics', leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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