claim_liquidated_positions

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions 'POST with EIP-712 signature', indicating a write operation requiring cryptographic authorization. However, it lacks details on state changes (e.g., transferred funds, position closure), permissions, or error conditions.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and key method. It contains no superfluous 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 14 required parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits return values, error handling, and signature construction steps, which are critical for a blockchain transaction.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain how the nested 'message' object relates to top-level parameters or how to construct the signature.

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 verb 'claim' and resource 'liquidated positions', and specifies the HTTP method (POST) and signature type (EIP-712). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_liquidated_positions' (read) and 'claim_insurance_fund' (different resource).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It does not mention when it is appropriate to claim liquidated positions or how it relates to other actions like viewing liquidations.

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