get_liq_radar

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. It states 'Redacted, read-only' and 'Side effects: none', disclosing read-only nature and cost (2 credits). Lacks detail on rate limiting but sufficient for basic understanding.

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?

Single dense paragraph with structured USE WHEN/NOT WHEN/RETURNS/COST sections. All sentences add value; no fluff. Could use more formatting but remains efficient.

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, but description details return structure (hypernatt_liq_radar_v1 with liq_radar fields). Covers cost, side effects, and usage conditions. Good completeness for a read-only tool with optional params.

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 already covers both parameters (100% coverage). Description adds value by explaining the x402 payment flow ('Omit on first call to receive 402 instructions') and the agent_wallet quota bypass, which are not in 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 explicitly states the tool returns 'Raw BTC liquidation radar' with specific components (magnet score, OI build-up, etc.) and clearly differentiates from sibling tools by naming them in the NOT WHEN clause.

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?

Provides explicit USE WHEN and NOT WHEN conditions, citing specific sibling tools (get_mm_trap_state, get_mm_hunt_score) for disambiguation, guiding the agent on selection.

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