get_liq_radar

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses cost ($0.001 x402 Base or Solana), network options, default symbol behavior, whitelist constraints, return type, and explicitly states 'Side effects: none.' This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the tool's identity and payload, then systematically covers whitelist, use cases, exclusions, return, cost, and side effects. Every sentence provides distinct, non-redundant information.

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, the description conveys the essence of the return (hypernatt_liq_radar_v2) and lists its components. It also covers cost, payment, and side effects. However, it doesn't detail the structure of the output or interpret the indicators, leaving some ambiguity for an agent, but overall sufficient for a data-retrieval tool.

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% and includes detailed descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds the cost amount and network flexibility ('Base or Solana') not present in schema, and reinforces symbol whitelist/default. However, agent_wallet parameter is not discussed in the description; schema already covers it, so the added value is moderate.

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 identifies the tool as a forced-order/liquidation map with specific deliverables (magnet bias, OI build-up, L/S ratio, clusters, real liqs). It distinguishes from siblings (get_agent_manifest, swap_via_nattswap) by stating it reveals market structure that 'classic public indicators do not show' and explicitly states it returns a specific radar (hypernatt_liq_radar_v2).

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 usage context ('USE WHEN: terrain / timing / sizing context') and negation ('NOT a trade signal or Fuel Score'), but does not name alternative tools or explicitly compare with siblings. This is clear guidance but lacks explicit alternative references, so not a 5.

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